A Green-Libertarian Alliance

[Vetalia]

There are many variables that can make a worker fail, and it isn't solely their fault for doing so, and it is once again idiotic to pretend it is.

An anecdotal example is my dad's experience...he was hired on to be a top-level sales manager, traveled the world to secure deals and make money for the company. After eighteen months, the higher-ups in the company decided it was necessary to fire all of their staff at that level and he found out just minutes before a meeting with a major customer. Why? Not because of poor performance but because firing all of them would boost company earnings right before the end of the quarter. He was paid well for the time he was there but it came at huge costs...long hours, a piss-poor corporate culture and downright terrible treatment from the higher-ups who were more focused on EPS than sustaining the business.

Now, if someone at that level with that kind of experience gets treated like that...what makes anyone think the average person working hard to get by is failing? Our system is sick and it's getting worse...employees used to be viewed as an asset but now, outside of small businesses, they're viewed as nothing more than a number to be thrown away to meet earnings expectations.

[Ceannairceach]

But, again, I am not a Marxist.

I'd like to add that I'm not a Marxist either.

Also, I think you mean that communism is stateless, not that Marxism is.

Quick typing, lots of words. Repetition is easier. Thanks for the note.

[Liberty of Republic]

1) Because I do not define people by their socioeconomic status. I define them as people. If I lose my job, I haven't lost my entire identity.
2) I think it applies.
3) I was not dismissing your argument. I just wasn't taking it seriously, because it was becoming a typical "workers should be infallible and never self reflect" rehash.




To be honest, you were the one earlier asking me whether I knew of anyone working class. You hardly implied that with a non-patronizing tone.

1. Did I ever claim that losing your job = losing your identity?
2. How does it apply?
3. How the hell does thinking capitalism is an unfree system mean you believe workers are infallible?
4. I understand where you think that's comparable, but I asked you that because you showed a noticeable lack of understanding or empathy towards unemployed people which suggests naivete and removal from that situation. On the other hand, you were making an ad hominem based on your assumptions about my life.

This is Youtube-tier debating.

To say that one employment being rigged against a certain demographic, means that employment is generally intrinsically rigged to oppress demographics in general, is a bit silly.

They didn't say that, though. Can you stop being so underhanded?

Also, to that Liberty of Republic guy, employment isn't all that voluntary when for one thing capitalism is held up through coercion and for another many people have to either be employed or starve.

And is that not extreme to say work or starve?
As a person that has been underemployed, unemployed and employed, I can say for certain, if you handled your finances well, you can live for a time before you are starving. But then again, too many in this nation and around the world think that you are guaranteed a job, food on your table, electricity, roof over your head and more, which in a free society you are not. Its called working your butt off to get what you need.

[Birkinghamia]

So, like the Whigs in the 1830's?

[Liberty of Republic]

There are many variables that can make a worker fail, and it isn't solely their fault for doing so, and it is once again idiotic to pretend it is.

An anecdotal example is my dad's experience...he was hired on to be a top-level sales manager, traveled the world to secure deals and make money for the company. After eighteen months, the higher-ups in the company decided it was necessary to fire all of their staff at that level and he found out just minutes before a meeting with a major customer. Why? Not because of poor performance but because firing all of them would boost company earnings right before the end of the quarter. He was paid well for the time he was there but it came at huge costs...long hours, a piss-poor corporate culture and downright terrible treatment from the higher-ups who were more focused on EPS than sustaining the business.

Now, if someone at that level with that kind of experience gets treated like that...what makes anyone think the average person working hard to get by is failing? Our system is sick and it's getting worse...employees used to be viewed as an asset but now, outside of small businesses, they're viewed as nothing more than a number to be thrown away to meet earnings expectations.

And it is like ninety percent of the private sector jobs are small businesses, so to demonize a system of free market as bad is silly.

[Tergnitz]

I do not see Libertarians and Greens coming to terms over ecological issues.

Or economics issues...

[Birkinghamia]

I do not see Libertarians and Greens coming to terms over ecological issues.

Or economics issues...

It'd be like the Whigs in the 1830's: little agreement on ideas and ideals between party members, but united in opposition for the establishment.

The party didn't last long.

[Shatters]

Wow, the third partiers really are getting desperate if they seriously think that an alliance between Greens and Libertarians would have any chance of success.

The two-party system exists because it's the best possible system, the two parties balance each other out and that has enabled America to prosper and grow in the past, and that is what will make America grow and prosper in the future too.

So yeah, screw the third parties for trying to fuck up everything.


Haha, no. Nobody is forcing the employee to stay;

Reality is. He can leave, but then he starves.

Just like "no one" is forcing a hostage to stay, only the reality that if he tries to escape, he'll get shot.

then learn to farm.

Communism is utopian and idealistic. There must be authority in combination with Socialism.

people so stupid as to require managing should be left to die.

Genevaria wrote:

Frankly if breaking the two parties hold on the system is as far as we can accomplish with an alliance then I'm ok with that, in fact I think that should be the main goal.

The political system of the U.S. unintentionally supports a two-major-party framework through the use of single-member districts with plurality voting. This winner-take-all approach generally convinces voters to choose from between the two candidates viewed as most likely to win that single seat, otherwise their vote is seen as having been wasted. The most successful political parties in the U.S. are composed, therefore, of an aggregate of candidates best able to win in single-member districts.

Other political systems, such as in Germany, feature multiple-member district with ordered selection of candidates. That type of system encourages multiple parties.

As an example, lets say you have a ten-seat district, with five parties taking part. Each party has a prioritized listing of candidates. The parties that put forward candidates win seats in proportion to the percentage of votes they receive. The leading party, Alpha, receives 41% of the votes and takes 4 seats (the first through fourth candidates on its ordered list); another party, Beta, collects 34% of the votes and takes 3 seats (Beta candidates one, two, and three); parties Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon take, respectively, 9.3%, 8.3%, and 7.3% of votes cast and each take one seat (the leading candidates on each parties list).

Those who voted for the minor parties did not 'throw their votes away,' they have won at least some representation in the district. This encourages support for smaller parties and changes in the political landscape over time. In the example, let's say that the representative for party Delta is particularly effective and receives positive media coverage... in the next election cycle Delta doubles its vote percentage and gains another seat.

To have a true multi-party system in the U.S., as opposed to just replacing one of the major parties with another (i.e. the Whig Party falling apart but quickly being replaced by the Republican Party) would likely require a change to multiple-member districts in more U.S. elections (Houses of Representatives, at both the state and federal levels, for example). As both existing major parties of the U.S. would be threatened by such a change, it would have to be driven by a true grassroots effort on the part of the American people.

the best thing that can come from any electoral reform is to encourage debate and thought within the masses. Moving from voting for individuals in a FPTP voting to voting for parties in your stated scheme might help, but I don't think think it'd be nearly as effective as voting for individuals in instant-run-off elections.

Its funny; Virgil Goode made a point of saying that he'd never in his lifetime vote to legalize any drugs, while Johnson was making a huge fuss about the ban on marijuana, during the Third Party Debates.

So... I disagree.

I said "mostly." Obviously, there would be differences, especially with drug laws. If there were no disagreements they would be the same party. They would agree with each other on economic policy, foreign and domestic policies, and the value of the Constitution (Libertarians tend to honor the Constitution).

there are far too may atheist in the LP to form an alliance with the bible humpers.

Please learn what economic freedom actually is

I do know. It's the freedom to do as one pleases without being constrained by the requirement to maintain one's access to the material means of survival. You apparently don't understand this, probably because you hate freedom.

why don't you go spout that line off to a farmer. Then try "liberating" his cows.

If I was an employer, and one my employees was being a cocky, smart mouthed little shit that fucked around, and still expected to be paid for it, I would want to fire that little shit on the spot. THAT, would be my freedom as an employer.

So your idea of freedom is the ability to use threats to control the behavior of others? Wow.

When most people think of someone who lives a free life, they'd think perhaps of a touring musician or nomadic traveler - someone with few obligations who makes their way in life according to their own dreams. The archetype of your idea of freedom would be a schoolyard bully - someone who makes themselves free of people they don't like through coercion.

seriously. If you want food, farm. If you want clothes, weave. If you want shelter, build. If you can't do these things for yourself you need to offer someone who can do these things something they want. If they want something you don't have, such as money, you need to obtain what they want so that you can offer it to them. If that means working for someone who is offering you money in exchange for your labor, that means working for someone who is offering you money in exchange for your labor and doing that labor. If you can't feed, clothe and shelter yourself, you have no money and you aren't willing to work I'd suggest getting out of everyone else's way.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

The majority of people being 'anti-bourgeoisie' just to be 'anti-bourgeoisie', bringing in an over zealous far left agenda where it wasn't needed for the sheer sake of it, supporting the view that the libertarians were 'oppressive', and telling me I was wrong earlier, still haven't outlined any practical plan over how they think would get their food, shelter, clothing etc in their deemed 'free from capitalist oppression society', if the market and state happened to magically disappear overnight?

You're on your own, no government safety net, no employment, no help at all, pure grassroot society, achieve your means of survival.... GO.

Why do people always go silent when you ask that?

[Cameroi]

i think the greens and libertarians need to hang on to their mutual differences, so that they will be able to replace the dems and repros respectively. ALL "third" parties DO have common cause though, and aliances will be mutually benificial, in overcoming their being shunned by corporate media.

[Blakk Metal]

The majority of people being 'anti-bourgeoisie' just to be 'anti-bourgeoisie', bringing in an over zealous far left agenda where it wasn't needed for the sheer sake of it, supporting the view that the libertarians were 'oppressive', and telling me I was wrong earlier, still haven't outlined any practical plan over how they think would get their food, shelter, clothing etc in their deemed 'free from capitalist oppression society', if the market and state happened to magically disappear overnight?

You're on your own, no government safety net, no employment, no help at all, pure grassroot society, achieve your means of survival.... GO.

Why do people always go silent when you ask that?

How did tape trading work anyways?

[Alaje]

Communism is utopian and idealistic. There must be authority in combination with Socialism.

people so stupid as to require managing should be left to die.

Without order and authority you can't have your precious rights.

[Cestallo]

Why would a party like the Libertarians - well known for supporting individual freedom and personal sovereignty - join with a group of hardcore socialists and anti-propertarians? By far a better strategy for breaking the corporate-liberal elite is Right-Wing Populism, which will soon have great success as the establishment crashes all around us.

[Alaje]

Why would a party like the Libertarians - well known for supporting individual freedom and personal sovereignty - join with a group of hardcore socialists and anti-propertarians? By far a better strategy for breaking the corporate-liberal elite is Right-Wing Populism, which will soon have great success as the establishment crashes all around us.

The left and right are useless, the center is the way forward.

[Republic Of Hell]

Gary Johnson will let you smoke weed, how can you still not vote for him?

[Meryuma]

1. Did I ever claim that losing your job = losing your identity?
2. How does it apply?
3. How the hell does thinking capitalism is an unfree system mean you believe workers are infallible?
4. I understand where you think that's comparable, but I asked you that because you showed a noticeable lack of understanding or empathy towards unemployed people which suggests naivete and removal from that situation. On the other hand, you were making an ad hominem based on your assumptions about my life.

This is Youtube-tier debating.



They didn't say that, though. Can you stop being so underhanded?

Also, to that Liberty of Republic guy, employment isn't all that voluntary when for one thing capitalism is held up through coercion and for another many people have to either be employed or starve.

And is that not extreme to say work or starve?
As a person that has been underemployed, unemployed and employed, I can say for certain, if you handled your finances well, you can live for a time before you are starving. But then again, too many in this nation and around the world think that you are guaranteed a job, food on your table, electricity, roof over your head and more, which in a free society you are not. Its called working your butt off to get what you need.

You seem to be conflating freedom with meritocracy, and a free society with our current society, which is very much unfree by any metric of freedom.

Why do people always go silent when you ask that?

Because we get tired of refuting strawman arguments.

There are several anarchist schools of thought with regards to economics, some of which advocate markets and some of which don't. A market system is not necessarily capitalist, BTW.

people so stupid as to require managing should be left to die.

Without order and authority you can't have your precious rights.

When has anyone advocated a society "without order" on this thread?

Why would a party like the Libertarians - well known for supporting individual freedom and personal sovereignty - join with a group of hardcore socialists and anti-propertarians? By far a better strategy for breaking the corporate-liberal elite is Right-Wing Populism, which will soon have great success as the establishment crashes all around us.

I'd rather not live in an even more overpopulated and polluted US with racial segregation and sodomy laws, thank you very much. The far right is the number one enemy of freedom.

Gary Johnson will let you smoke weed, how can you still not vote for him?

Because he's a vulgar libertarian who thinks welfare is a serious problem for freedom but anti-piracy laws aren't, and he supports the "Fair"Tax, i.e. the doublespeak tax..

[Malgrave]

Green Libertarian Alliance? Surely any credible Green party would propose strict environmental, economic and social regulation that any sane Libertarian would immediately disagree with.

[Malgrave]

Why would a party like the Libertarians - well known for supporting individual freedom and personal sovereignty - join with a group of hardcore socialists and anti-propertarians? By far a better strategy for breaking the corporate-liberal elite is Right-Wing Populism, which will soon have great success as the establishment crashes all around us.

Those starving people will surely love the same right-wing that took away their food stamp and unemployment benefits! Oh and those seniors living in third world poverty will of course join this populist movement.

[Republic Of Hell]

Gary Johnson will let you smoke weed, how can you still not vote for him?

Because he's a vulgar libertarian who thinks welfare is a serious problem for freedom but anti-piracy laws aren't, and he supports the "Fair"Tax, i.e. the doublespeak tax..

Psst... it's usually not the best idea to attack people's viewpoints by stating things they agree with. Well, for the first two anyway, Fair Tax isn't fair at all. Which is probably the first time I've ever read something by a leftist on this board and agreed with it, but there ya go.

[Meryuma]

Because he's a vulgar libertarian who thinks welfare is a serious problem for freedom but anti-piracy laws aren't, and he supports the "Fair"Tax, i.e. the doublespeak tax..

Psst... it's usually not the best idea to attack people's viewpoints by stating things they agree with. Well, for the first two anyway, Fair Tax isn't fair at all. Which is probably the first time I've ever read something by a leftist on this board and agreed with it, but there ya go.

My point was that it's vulgar libertarianism to see welfare as a serious imposition on liberty and to not see anti-piracy restrictions as a serious imposition on liberty.

I'm glad you haven't fallen for the "Fair"Tax, BTW (unfortunately Gary Johnson has).

[Geilinor]

I don't think Greens and Libertarians would be on such speaking terms, because of serious economic policy differences that may be irreconcilable. Strategically, it would help, but highly ideological people aren't going to agree to such a merger. At least they share similarities on foreign policy and civil liberties, unlike the Democrats and Republicans, who have nothing to tie them together.

[Meryuma]

unlike the Democrats and Republicans, who have nothing to tie them together.

The Democrats and Republicans are really similar, actually.

[Divair]

Gary Johnson will let you smoke weed, how can you still not vote for him?

Because his economic policies are nuts.

[Cold Coast]

Gary Johnson will let you smoke weed, how can you still not vote for him?

Because his economic policies are nuts.

He has too much faith in the private sector to do research.

[Samuraikoku]

Matt Ward made the Blood Angels and the Necrons cooperate.

Maybe this can happen.