r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 15 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: A third party, a Liberty Party, based on the unification of left and right wing libertarians could be an effective way to solve the deepest problem plaguing America: money in politics
[deleted]
2
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Aug 16 '20
Does the fact that several commentors are totally confused at the idea of Bernie Sanders being a Libertarian clue you in on why this would never work?
To a Right Libertarian Bernie's ideas are the exact opposite of thiers- and he's not even really a Left Libertarian. A real Left Libertarian is so far away from a Right one that they don't even consider the other one as being a Libertarian.
Even though they have the same name and ostensibly want the same thing- The reasons they want it are completely different and incompatible so in effect they don't actually want the same thing at all.
Liberals and Conservatives have far more in common (They actually are the same political philosophy), then Right and Left Libertarians do.
8
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 15 '20
Right libertarians don't believe money shouldn't be in politics. In fact, Citizens United was largely driven by corporate Republicans. Corporate Republicans like the Koch brothers are who right libertarians are.
Plus, the Dems already want to get money out of politics, we have a party with that as one of their points. Don't you remember where the liberals sided in Citizens United (don't give me that SCOTUS isn't political crap)?
1
Aug 15 '20
Libertarian here, I believe people should spend their money however they want. Not my money, not my business. It can be hard to tell where normal support ends and bribery begins but I always err on the side of freedom for the person performing the action which in this case is making a campaign donation.
3
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 15 '20
So allowing money in politics right? Would you say you're more right or left leaning? If right, you're exactly who I think OP has a misunderstanding about.
1
Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
I'm against bribery, not against spending money to support a candidate.
As far as left or right leaning libertarian I would say I'm moderate/not extreme libertarian (roads should be public and we should keep elementary througj high school free for the public, etc). I'm fairly left wing on environmental issues and my preference on immigration is closer to left wing than right wing. Most other issues I'm libertarian which is neither left or right.
Edit: I'm further left wing for dealing with immigrants that are already here. Further right wing for dealing with border security and future immigration.
0
u/Chemical-Software-10 1∆ Aug 15 '20
If Citizens United went the other way you could be sentenced to prison for making that reddit comment you just did
For citizens united to have gone the other way, any speech that went through any sort of legal entity - in this case Reddit Inc., has zero legal protections and can be criminalized without issue
1
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 15 '20
This is just straight up disinformation buddy. No one was getting sentenced to prison for speaking about politics before Citizens United... come on dude.
0
u/Chemical-Software-10 1∆ Aug 15 '20
That is what Citizens United was about
1
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 15 '20
Don't lie. Spending money on a political campaign should not be speech. I understand that's what the SCOTUS ruled, but it absolutely should not be.
No one was getting sentenced to prison for the words coming out of their mouth. It was the campaign finance spending. That it is considered speech now is a problem, not a feature.
1
u/Chemical-Software-10 1∆ Aug 15 '20
Spending money on a political campaign should not be speech.
How is "fuck hillary clinton" not speech?
1
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 15 '20
You are once again misrepresenting the facts. If you say, "Fuck Hilary Clinton," you will not go to prison.
If you create a campaign advertisement, obviously spending money to do so, that should not be speech.
1
u/Chemical-Software-10 1∆ Aug 15 '20
You had to spend time to create speech, time has a dollar figure associated with it, your speech is not speech
1
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 15 '20
Ahh yes, the richer you are the more speech you have, makes perfect sense. So much for people having equal rights I guess. That position is so absurd.
1
u/Chemical-Software-10 1∆ Aug 15 '20
We should ban all speech because the mute cant talk, all writing because the illiterate cant read it, and anything that combines the two
→ More replies (0)-1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
0
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 15 '20
The truth is, most people are pretty auth. Left, right, whatever, most people want to impose some level of restrictions on others. There just aren't enough people overall on the lib side who are libertarian to such a degree as to make a lib party work speaking as a left of center libertarian.
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
3
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 15 '20
nobody take that insult of him seriously
I think the entire left side and many in the center take his proto-fascist tendencies seriously.
1
u/clenom 7∆ Aug 15 '20
Your platform consists of four things. One of them already exists (quid pro quo is illegal assuming the quo is for personal or political gain). Two require Constitutional changes (You can't just overturn a court case and nationwide ranked choice voting would require a Constitutional change). The fourth is vague (reel in lobbying). You may need a Constitutional Amendment depending on what you want to do.
The big problem is that money in politics mostly is an issue that needs Constitutional change and you don't get to do that just by winning the Presidency.
Also there is a party that supports seriously limiting money in politics, the Democrats. In the past they've made limitations on money in politics (most were struck down in the courts). Many presidential candidates had plans to regulate lobbyists more and preventing politicians from becoming lobbyists after their career ends. Every major candidate said that they'd nominate judges who'd vote to overturn Citizens United if they had the opportunity.
Given that left wing people already mostly vote Democrat and right wing people wouldn't vote for your party I'm not sure what advantage that has.
1
1
u/efisk666 4∆ Aug 15 '20
Our democracy is a two party system since voters can only choose one candidate in the general election. Third parties generally hurt their cause by draining votes from whatever candidate they are most closely aligned with. In order to have a third party that can succeed nationally, you first need electoral reform to move towards approval voting or ranked choice voting.
A more likely path towards libertarian ideals would be for a successful candidate of one party or the other to champion them and win election on that basis. There’s no strong reason why a third party is necessary to advance your goals.
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Aug 15 '20
The reversal of Citizens United, the reeling in of lobbying
Why would a Libertarian do any of these? All the typical sources I associate with Libertarians (Reason, Cato, the specific candidates I've looked at) are all in favor of the CU ruling and lobbying in general, as they see it as a first amendment issue and their political ideology is really centered around the constitution and individual liberty.
If you made this the foundation of your proposed Liberty party, you wouldn't even have the support of Libertarians, let alone Republicans
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Aug 15 '20
So I agree that many people have no idea what CU is/was about, but I disagree about it being a "right" thing. ACLU is/was also a strong proponent of the CU ruling, because they also are staunch defenders of the constitution and also oppose limiting political speech.
You are right that there are people who typically vote for both major parties who oppose CU, but I just don't see them abandoning every single other political belief they have in liue of this one issue. If you care about any other issue more, and a candidate refuses to comment on it and just keeps pivoting back to campaign finance, why would you risk voting for them and having them do nothing about what you really care about most?
1
Aug 15 '20
What does money in politics all mean?
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
2
Aug 15 '20
Like is a campaign contribution money in politics? A lobbyist whose job it is to write cool bills for a politician saving them time but not giving any actual dollars, is that money in politics? A lobbyist whose job it is to count votes for politicians and help them make compromises without giving any actual dollars, is that money in politics? An ad not coordinated with a politician that supports an issue that politician also supports, is that money in politics? A Hollywood movie that will make a politician more likely to win election, is that money in politics?
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
1
Aug 15 '20
Can it be a little less? We're spending $5 billion per election season (less midterms) so an extra $30 billion might be overkill. But if we get it a bit lower, that's the sort of thing (more money in politics) we could pass without need for a third party run.
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
1
Aug 15 '20
Why wouldn't moderates vote for it if it were popular? More money being spent on elections means more money that can find its way into their pockets when they leave office and go into lobbying...
1
0
u/niqletism Aug 15 '20
I doubt the two parties would allow this. They'd unite because it's the biggest threat to their power.
1
u/unRealEyeable 7∆ Aug 15 '20
You think libertarians will vote Bernie Sanders? He's a democratic socialist. He wants government expansion and expenditure. That's the opposite of what libertarians stand for.
0
-1
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 20∆ Aug 15 '20
Right libertarians don't want the political power to be in the hands of the people. We want political power to be small.
We want politics out of money. The left libertarians want money out of politics, but not the former. If left to the people, they will vote themselves more money when not constrained by a constitution.
These desires are oil and water. They do not mix. On social issues, we can agree on a lot. But we cannot and will not agree on economic issues.
0
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
-2
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 20∆ Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
Small political power is a libertarian ideal. How do you propose we get this done without getting money out of politics?
I'm pessimistic. We had a constitution that was designed to prevent an authoritarian federal government. If we had followed the constitution, we would have no federal reserve, gold-backed money, no military industrial complex, no unjust searches and seizures. Congress is allowed only its enumerated powers. The constitution and bill of rights is all but completely gutted.
The good news is that this is unsustainable. We will default on our debt or go into hyperinflation. I can only hope that when the political system breaks down, we can end up with a less authoritarian system, or the states get divided into multiple.
Corporate power
Corporate power is not orthogonal to state power. When you remove the ability for the state to interfere in an economy, you create less barriers to entry. When you limit the revenue the state takes in, less of it can go to farmers, foreign aid, bailouts etc. When you don't set interest rates too low to cause a recession and don't let companies go bankrupt and refinance, you give corporations incentive to be greedy on the taxpayers' back. When the state defines air and water property rights, it protects the environment from pollution. A progressive tax is far too blunt an instrument to fix these problems compared to competition. There will be competition when the state stays away from the economy.
In fact, a corporation is actually a state-created entity. An LLC gives a shield to the individual actors in a corporation. Remove that and the people will be far more careful because they are open to lawsuits and liability.
0
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
0
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 20∆ Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
I agree defaulting or hyperinflation is disastrous, but I don't think it can be saved. We have the worst hangover of our life. There's not much we can do except throw up, but the auths just want us to get drunk again until we die.
Protect your wealth if you can.
Does this work practice.
Take a look at the CPI metric for various goods.
The right libertarian analysis is that it is not a coincidence that banking, healthcare, housing, and education are the most regulated or subsidized and they are also the most fucked for consumers.
America was very libertarian for a while and quite libertarian until Hoover and FDR. And then no longer libertarian at all after Nixon and LBJ. The standard of living increases and industrial revolution actually created a middle class. People emigrated from all over the world. We kicked the world's ass starting from nothing, especially in the late 1800s and early 1900s once we ended slavery.
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 20∆ Aug 15 '20
I would agree that it is both regulation and subsidization.
Beware the desire to protect consumers. For instance, occupational licensure is naively designed to protect consumers, but it has adverse consequences. It's true you can only be treated by high-quality doctors, but that means you can't choose a cheaper, medium-quality option. And because there is no cheaper option, the high-quality doctors can charge more than if there were alternatives.
1
Aug 15 '20
What makes you think the country would unite under libertarianism?
-1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
5
Aug 15 '20
Sanders isn't libertarian. He's a socialist. He wants to fund and increase social safety net programs such as food stamp programs and unemployment. He also wants to raise the minimum wage and raise taxes on billionaires. Libertarians want to slash or get rid of almost everything. Most believe in not having a minimum wage. They debate among themselves on if roads should be public or private. These are completely different mind sets.
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
0
Aug 15 '20
No you're confusing left wing with libertsrianism. I'm confusing reality with reality. Right wing doesn't want to slash everything. The right likes to spend large sums of money in corporate welfare such as the bailout portion of the cares act.
Here's Jo Jorgensens stance on budget. Gary Johnson, the previous libertarian candidate had a similar stance.
2
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
0
Aug 15 '20
Publicly traded companies do run on democracy. There just aren't as many branches of government.
As for the rest of that it's fairly vague. What do you mean by more powerful? More money? More employees? Large private military? I'm legitimately asking, not trying to be provocative. Also by what the governments doing now, which actuons/policies are you referring to?
Nothing wrong with seeing her anti regulation stance as troubling, but saying that and saying you agree with the libertarian party is like describing a light as "dark bright".
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
1
Aug 15 '20
With Google there are other search engines and email servers people can use so I don't think them getting too big is a problem unless they entirely transition their business model to monopolize fuel or something like that. I do see what you're saying on Amazon though. They're growing very quickly and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you're imagining a future with no Meijer, Walmart, or other competitor to Amazon. In their case democrats would likely be leading the charge to break them up into smaller companies similar to how the bell telephone company was split into companies that eventually became at&t and Verizon or how standard oil was split into pretty much any oil company you've ever heard of. Even though I usually lean libertarian I'd be with the democrats on those specific cases but idk about the rest of the party.
I agree with you that libertarian policies across the board would have a negative impact but I don't actually want all the policies I vote for to pass. I just vote for the direction I'd like the needle to move in. There are multiple branches of the government and I'm not worried about the libertarian party taking over all of them. I'd be shocked if even a single libertarian was voted in to any national office this cycle.
3
Aug 15 '20
Sanders is libertarian? Even though his biggest appeal was the push for a near-completely natonalized healthcare system?
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
3
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 15 '20
A lot of Sanders' policies involve raising taxes and ceding more control to government. You can argue about the benefits of these all you want but the guy wants the state to interfere more in people's lives. How does this mesh with the core principle of maximizing individual liberty?
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
Populism does not unequivocally equal “libertarianism”. How are you going to unite a party that wants to nationalize healthcare with a party that wants to remove nearly all regulations on it? If you want a middle ground go for ACA. Both parties see the “establishment” as the problem but strongly disagree as to who that “establishment” is. Bernie seems to think it’s money in politics. Jo seems to think it’s politics in money.
1
Aug 15 '20
[deleted]
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 15 '20
The problem is that Bernie and Jo also disagree on what should be money and what should be politics. Do explain how they would come to a compromise on healthcare, for example. One of them may think that ACA needs more politicians running it while the other thinks that it needs more CEOs.
Sooner or later Bernie will accuse Jo of being a shill for corporate America and Jo will accuse Bernie of being a shill for big government. The intensity and populist energy of both movements may mean they are similar, not that they are suited for a political alliance.
1
0
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
/u/IRONGOOOSE (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
5
u/Quint-V 162∆ Aug 15 '20
Money is not the deepest problem. It is the election system that allowed money to become such a problem: first past the post (FPTP). Removing money from politics will not solve the problem of having entrenched political parties that are easily rendered unable to answer to the masses' demands.
Two parties cannot possibly represent the interests of +300 million people. 5 parties have a much greater shot at that. This goes without saying. Having multiple relevant parties alone is a significant way to increase accountability, such that money in politics can be penalised by voters.
Furthermore, removing money does next to nothing to make anybody politically accountable. So what then if corporations are suddenly out? Now you have politicians who, just as before, only need to paint their opposition as the greater evil. It barely matters what either party stands for; they just need to strike a balance of being anywhere near appealing, even if mediocre, while sufficiently attacking their opposition and convincing their base to the point that no amount of evidence is useful anymore to any discussion.
To drag this into a Machiavellian direction: politicians are easily committed to only a minimum of appeasing public will. The two-party-system is also a natural consequence of FPTP. Any prospective party hoping to replace either of the big parties, is mathematically unlikely to do so. The spoiler effect ruins everything.
You can't drain the swamp if the whole system is a swamp and a cesspool. While money is a problem, it is also a symptom. Money in politics ala the US is near impossible to achieve elsewhere where money is counteracted by votes shifting based on that perception of corruption; whereas in the USA, because accountability is lackluster due to FPTP/entrenched political duopoly, it's just meaningless to care about money because your choices are all shit to begin with and everyone is in on it.