The Most Hilarious Part Of The Libertarian Party

[JonathanBrowne]

Nearly every libertarian out there wants to label GMOs.

A position I agree with and Obama actually promised before his initial election. (A very hard one for him to deliver but I think he will take steps this term toward that).

The hilarious part is that the hero of libertarianism himself is AGAINST LABELING GMOS.

"The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to 'capture,' where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of 'modified' to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone"- Ron Paul.

This should really be obvious. If you aren't for putting restrictions on companies, how do you plan on getting GMOs labeled?

Of course they'll say leave it up to the states. Hmm.... worked out well didn't it this year.

And what about all the people in other states in the hypothetical situation GMO labeling gets made into law in some states.... who are forced to eat GMO foods without being aware of it?

Libertarianism is based on a nice ideal. I agree strongly with their position on the drug war.

But beyond that it's an absolutely illogical idea.

I feel like the next step in this country is honestly a totally new political party that transcends all current political parties. Every political party I think is misaligned with the optimal position that could really work for everyone.

Yes, even democrats. I'm firmly a progressive. And a huge obama supporter. However, I think that in 10-20 years we could get a third party together that transcends even the politics and accomplishments of Obama.

I actually think Obama has much higher minded ideas than what he currently is able to run on and achieve.

I believe he's paving the way for something much greater.

A truly post partisan society.

I think there actually is a correct answer, politically and economically.

An answer based on math, science, correct economic theory, and a mixture of fiscal responsibility, lower taxes through dramatically reduced spending, strategic investment at the proper times for new developments like computers, the space program, federal highways, green energy etc.

What we need eventually for an ideal society is not a democrat, or a republican.

We need a "technocrat" with a strongly uniting spiritual core. (the true core of all religions. The development of the human spirit).

Someone who can scientifically justify their policies, but who also has a strong creative vision for the future.

[k2qb3]

1. Interesting...

I actually think we do need two parties (RMS echoed my thoughts on this perfectly last night), it's just that we only have one that's functional atm.

Third parties don't work in this system unless one of the major parties fails and the new party replaces it. That's exactly what I expect to see happen sometime in the next couple decades. W killed the GOP, it just hasn't stopped twitching yet.

Libertarianism is the natural counterparty to liberal progressivism, conservatism is really a lousy principle to build a political movement around, destined for failure. The current LP suffers a lot from being a fringe party full of fringe people, and will suffer more from a big influx of conservatives should a realignment take place, but the core Jeffersonian "governments are instituted to secure the rights of the people" principle is tough to argue with.

It's not so much I think we need a new party that will be better than the Dems, it's that the Dems will be better if we have a different opposition party.

[JonathanBrowne]

2. This System

Actually I think that what has really happened is that Barack has managed to actually convince democrats that certain republican principles are valid and the best parts of republicanism have been co-opted by democrats.

So basically, the democratic platform is really in an unassailable position.

Now the GOP either presents a highly moderate slightly tweaked to the right version of what democrats propose, or they lose.

Their social conservative ideas, for the most part, are now outdated and are dying.

What i'm saying is that basically, we have won the "ongoing battle" of ideology.

Now I think the next revolution beyond the election of a black president and the prevailing of progressive ideals, is to go even further and make a third party viable.

Let's face it, Barack is great but he is limited by the status quo.

The status quo is now tweaked enough to begin an argument for much more radical reforms that would dramatically change society.

Barack has won a mandate for the concepts of fiscal responsibility AND government investment in society in my view.

If we want to really lead the 21st century though, we need to actually step much further in that direction I think.

Imagine a society where drugs are legal and a lot of investment is put into TREATMENT and PREVENTION of usage instead of arresting people. That would destroy the drug cartels and dramatically reduce violent crime in the US and even more so, abroad.

Imagine a society where military funding was reduced dramatically and we actually figured out a way to empower the united nations and our allies to create a more effective worldwide defense that didn't rely on the us spending a disproportionate amount of our gdp on military spending.

We could use the money to invest in things that we currently consider science fiction in society, despite the fact that they are actually viable.

Could you imagine if we had a president who, like JFK announcing we would land on the moon, announced that we would mine an asteroid?

Do you realize we could get around 100 trillion dollars of resources from an asteroid and we have the technological capacity to actually mine one?

We just don't have the political will.


What i'm talking about is a third "technocrat" party that would completely ignore political ideology and take a science based mathematical approach with the aim of creating a post scarcity society.

People are skeptical of "utopian" ideas. However if you described our current society 100 years ago, it would be beyond some of the wild fantasies of "utopian" thinkers.

I think a post scarcity society would simply be a relative utopia.

We don't need socialism, communism, or any type of ism to achieve this.

We need to move past the need for "politics" and move into a society managed by scientists, engineers, etc.

We would still need someone who is a "politician" to actually garner support for this, but basically they would just be a salesman for this vision, not an ideologue from the "right" or the "left".

I really think that it's possible to actually convince any sensible democrat or republican of a unified vision that would fulfill all the desires and worries of both parties.

At the core, rational people from both parties want the same thing.

A prosperous, economically strong country, and true freedom.

We would all take a post scarcity society if someone laid the roadmap. There's just a lot of fear about what would need to be sacrificed to accomplish it.

I just think that it has nothing do with implementing socialism or some ideology.

The solution has to be engineered.

And I firmly believe it can be.