Was wondering if any fellow party members are here?
Printable View
Was wondering if any fellow party members are here?
I would vote Libertarian if the party had a national platform.
I do agree with some of their statements (https://www.libertarian.ca/platform) and I can understand the angle they take on some others (not that I necessarily fully agree with it or see how it could be implemented).
However, I do not only disagree with their platform #10 - I think it also shows a complete lack of realism on a very important topic for Canada!
[COLOR=#0F174D]More specifically, the Libertarian Party of Canada would:
- Significantly decrease the bureaucratic burden for refugees and asylum seekers
- Eliminate the point system for immigration and replace it with a background check for violent or fraudulent criminal activity
I'm not going to support a party/ideology that is going to import the type of people that we need least in this country (by the way, background checks are part of the point system). Immigrants who meet the criteria of the point system; e.g. federal skilled workers, typically are an actual benefit (and if they unexpectedly shouldn't find a job right away, they don't cause any problems either). problems and high costs always have been associated with refugees and family sponsored immigrants.
so why on earth would one open up free immigration (i.e. masses of mostly low skilled immigrants from 3rd world countries) and toss a well proven objective system over board that has been working well for Canadians and qualifying immigrants?
PS: not picking on anyone for being involved in any party or voting for any party, but I do read all the platforms and there's always something I don't like (no matter what party it is)
I found the party about a year ago and did my research on party platform. Most if not all I can agree with. The key principle for me is freedom and self rights. In both Federal and Ontario provincial election we will be fielding candidates in all ridings. One of the key principles of switching to this party is individual rights, property rights and the right to choice my own path, free of government interference. It took me a while to sign on and I had a lot of reservations, but when you dig down into how they will change the way government will be run it makes sense. Libertarian's believe in less government and less control over your life. Government is a guide to provide common law, not the authority. A flat tax system. Open up private health care for those that chose to buy it. (Very contentious subject), allow private industry in, do you think the rich wait in line, no they leave the country. Maintain the public health system which requires a thorough rework to eliminate middlemen and give directly to hospitals. In Ontario this will free up billions of health care dollars which can be used to hire front line workers. Allow property rights of ownership, something you do not have right now, repel the firearms act, but retain the training and qualifying requirements, I.E. no criminal record. Self defense, defense of property will be law and a right. Reduce government regulations for businesses and change the law to go after owners and members of a corporate entity for liability. Something you cannot do now, this will hold businesses to account for actions of a company. Libertarians believe in any force against you is wrong, such as property rights and what can or cannot build or do to your property, building codes ect, ect. If you chose to live in a mud dung house, heated by corn oil lamps, then so be it. Justice, eliminate all victimless crimes, such marijuana personal use and growing. Selling pounds of pot would still be illegal, but grow and smoke your own..no problem. What to start a vegetable stand, dairy farm, beef cattle, go ahead your product will sell itself if done right. No need for meat/dairy/poultry/pork/grains marketing boards. Simple freedoms and liberty is premise of libertarianism, less government control and influence in your life.
Waftrudnir to answer your question specifically - Libertarians believe in immigration and it is needed for Canada. Come one come all. Feel free to practice any religion you want, feel free to spread your (with true free speech, not like we have now) message to all ears who will listen. But, as a libertarian, if you try to force your views on me or ask me to change it is my choice to do so or not. That is freedom, if you try to force your views on me, or make me conform that is wrong. Libertarian's wish you to you life your life the way you want to, practice what ever you want.
Screening laws will still be in place and skills will be at the top of the list. You concerns are valid, but what is occurring right now. None of that is working, sympathizers are allowed to stay or enter at the will of the government (at least this one). Simply put, if you have skills your at the top of the list, no matter your religion. If we need non skilled workers then so be it, let them in too. That is what is occurring right now. The big difference will be the economic situation, if in times of recession (like now), shut the doors to all. ALso, it will not be the role of a Libertarian government to provide the means of support to refugee or immigrant. Private sponsorship will be the model and end the role of government support. Timeframes will imposed on immigrants of any nature to get a job and secure a life with sponsors help. The will know this before coming, unlike to open door cash for life system we have now. That will be the change to current system.
Libertarian's are progressive in nature, and wish to see business and flourish.
Ya, so I am working towards that goal.
I like your spirit and I agree that we need a different kind of change. Getting involved in a party where you feel you can make this change is good.
What I'm saying is again not to put anyone down, but just a word of caution that when ideology becomes dogmatic and is spun down all the way (history has plenty of examples on that one).
So, when it comes to immigration policy I can only see the ideology side being reflected currently, but not how (other than the deterrent of travel costs) do you think we will keep people out of Canada (or any other first world country) with this policy. It's simply a number game: 80% of the 7 billion humans live on less than $10/day. We are 35 mio and if no other first world country (i.e. someone dumb as Angela Merkel) opens up their borders, there is a potential of 200 immigrants per one Canadian. Add to that that Africa & Asia have 3x the birthrate of North America & Europe and you know it is only getting worse. Background checks are only reliable in first world countries. The reality is in the numbers.
Health care; I understand the frustration, but a dual system is not the solution. There are THREE categories of patients (economically speaking); some with money who can easily afford a private system, the middle class, and those who will not contribute anything (e.g. welfare recipients, refugees, etc.). So who is going to pay for the third category?
Hint, it won't be the elites with the money...
Why I say all of that is because I would like to see more parties on the right (same amount/strength as on the left). the libertarians are by nature hard to put in a corner anyway, but that's not the issue. platforms that are not realistic will not attract voters from the right (and the lefties have already plenty to choose from)
Yup, I get that. But offering a private system for those who can pay (not me), will take those people out of the private system (technically) and leave that money at home in private business. The public system we have now is crap and over burdened with middle management, which is sucking health care from the hospitals. The poor and those need it will be taken care of, the middle management cuts will assure actual health care dollars get down to CEO of hospitals to hire front line staff and open more beds. These are some plans and ideas we have.
Education: A forum post on education plan:
Ontario PARENTS: If you have kids and live in Ontario, I'd like a moment of your time. I'm involved in a political party in the province, and we're developing a plan to introduce comprehensive school reform. We're operating on a platform of School Choice, and we'd like to convert Ontario's school system into a Voucher System. This means that would you receive a Voucher every year for each child, of a value that would ensure you could afford private grade-school education. Essentially, we would be re-directing the funds currently paid to school boards, and giving that money DIRECTLY to the parents. This doesn't necessarily mean that schools will be unable to continue operating as normal, but school boards will now have to work much harder for their customers. This also gives teachers an INCREDIBLE opportunity to control their own class room sizes and scale their pay based solely on their ambition. We estimate that each annual Voucher could be worth as much as $5,500 per child. This would allow us to cut roughly $2.5 Billion from the administrative costs of the public school system. Now, a voucher can only be used to pay for registered educators, but this reform would come coupled with significant deregulation of education, allowing essentially anyone to register as a private educator and receive voucher funds. We believe this would lead not just to a huge number of new jobs, but a great way for parents to custom-tailor their child's education instead of being forced into the one-size-fits-all system. Your thoughts?
[QUOTE=Waftrudnir;1005416]
Health care; I understand the frustration, but a dual system is not the solution. There are THREE categories of patients (economically speaking); some with money who can easily afford a private system, the middle class, and those who will not contribute anything (e.g. welfare recipients, refugees, etc.). So who is going to pay for the third category?
Hint, it won't be the elites with the money...
QUOTE]
if you unsatisfied with a business, a customer should be able to walk away and find another business that either offers more value or matches their preferences better. so, there shouldn't be a difference when it comes to schools.
so far, we are on the same page.
the questions will be around the funds; i.e. can everyone afford adequate education? our universities are completely overpriced. will the same happen to the average schools? how will the school you went impact what university/college you can attend. kind of can you afford your child's education all the way, rather than is you child smart enough. most parents believer their children are so smart and talented (they pay through the nose) just to find out later in life that they are slightly below average.
long story short, money is a good driver/indicator, but when it comes to education, brain and determination should take precedence. are we still on the same page?
the reason why I sound like I challenge those ideas is not because I necessarily disagree, but because I don't see the boundaries within these are supposed to be applied. I know: boundaries are not part of that ideology, but without defining a clear scope/purpose one will have a very hard time to transfer great concepts into reality.
I like to believe that politics need both catchy phrases and detailed strategies.
However, in order to win (as we've seen not too long ago), the only thing that really mattered was a massive propaganda machinery.
In Ontario we have had the rape and pillage of the taxpayer. The libertarian Party has been here for 23 years. People have been happy (me included) to go along with their lives. What has changed in the past two years, is two fold. US election and Hydro, people have finally woken up to the manipulation that is done by all parties. Libertarians don't go for that, we have simple policies, more freedoms of choice, individual rights, protected rights. This is what drew me to them, I am a veterans rights, gun rights advocate first and foremost.
Schools - The current thought collective practice of teaching is not working and is not producing educated kids. I have two that show proof of that, many of my friends are saying the same things. One of the problems we face as parents is the one size fits all model of teaching subjects/students. Every parent knows the strengths and weaknesses of their child. Some are predisposed to math, writing, science, literature or just working with hands. If you know your child's gifts you can tailor the education to each one skills. A Libertarian school guidance package would include a pass fail standard for each grade, it would be up to the educator to ensure the child is taught skills needed to pass each grade. If they fail, they loose business. Imagine with the same legal scrutiny as firearms, a mom wants to stay at home and run a daycare/teach (10 kids) and get paid (via tax voucher) for each child ($5500) 10 months 55K to teach at home, or say a staunch Christian or Hindu, or Muslim, French community did this. Say a small community like Dundas/Glengarry that is facing a school closure and having to bus the kids all over. They could form a community association and teach themselves, keep the school open and pay with vouchers to run it.. Say 100 kids grades 1-12, that would be $550,000.00 to run the school, now if they were smart and conserved, trips, food, laptops could all be paid with fund. Fund raisers if needed would be community involved and all those funds would stay in that community, paying salaries, creating wealth. Kids would learn what was needed to pass, because lets face it, not all will become doctors and lawyers, but if they chose to do so, it will be spotted and recognized and developed. This is not the case now.
Currently, the system is designed (programed) to train kids to attend college and get a good education...but if the parents can't afford RESP's to bad, get a student loan and pay me... Will that change, I don't know. But what I can reasonable assure you, the kid graduating from this system will have developed their potential and will have strengths in gifted areas. That is what is not occurring right now...
Tons of parents are currently home schooling with no tax breaks and kids have to pass common tests each to grad to next level. Big difference, they still pay school taxes. The thought of this scares the bejesus out of the system...
That same mom, would only owe $8250.00 in tax on the 55K (our plan 15% flat tax) .. under the current rates she would pay $15,950 @ 29%. The extra 8K in saving could pay for her computers, internet, teaching aids, ect, ect alone.
One of the benefits of this system is the reduction is ADMIN costs currently used to pay school boards, schools. City schools can stay open under same rules and "schools" would have to compete for your tax dollars (voucher) based on success rates. Competition is a beautiful thing to make people work harder.
arguing that our school system is perfect is a lost battle. arguing that it is cost efficient would be ridiculous!
so, yes there is a need for change and no party seems to pick that up. add to this that property taxes are wasted for a lot of other things, it's good political bait.
what I do wonder however is will the tuition fee be capped? you know the better a school is the more they should be able to ask for, right. but then we pretty much end up with the private school debacle. I have friends who pay through the nose, and I don't think they will ever seen any return on their "investment". Kids in private schools have always good marks (that what you pay for, otherwise they'll send their kids to a different private school). The real frustration comes when those kids transition to a public school, where everybody is the same, grades will drop dramatically and the parents start to wonder why they paid all those years so much money for.
so, perhaps money should not be the ultimate driver and the school fees should be capped to avoid the "paying for good marks" issue.
you mentioned communities. in principle nothing wrong with that. however, we all know that there are a few 'communities' that give a s**** about western principles (not talking about keeping their identity, but imposing theirs on others). I'm not going to map out on here what a voucher based system could eventually fund if there is no framework built around.
I think we always come back to bait alone is not landing the fish, you need a hook with barbs...
small parties have it harder; they don't have a big net to land large schools of dumb fish.
catching one fish after the other is hard work and takes a lot of time; i.e. by the time you fill the bag the first ones already start stinking.
however, as electing small parties will unlikely get them into power either, the purpose for voting for them is often different: it scares the hell out of the establishment and makes they are forced to adjust their platforms if they don't want to have too many go through their net.
Well, we agree on some thing and others no so much. I thank for your debate. When it come to "other communities" great they can live in peace and freedom however they chose, whatever their principles or religion dictates. That is a tenant of libertinism, individual choice, individual rights and freedom of that choice without government interference. We welcome all to live freely. On the same vein though, if you try to force your views on me, that breaks the freedom of choice and it is wrong in a liberation view. I live my life as I see fit, and you do the same.
We don't believe in gay, white, black, orange and purple rights. It would not be an issue if you had the choice to do as freely as you desire. If those rights (yours) are enshrined under law for you, no issue, no regulations required. This applies to gun rights as well, you have to pass a test, and criminal background check, after, buy what you want, use it how you want, have as many types and versions as you want. Do as you wish on your property. Carry with you or not.
Right now we have a debate on pot. We won't make it illegal or legal. It will simply be your choice to smoke, vape, grow or eat all you can grow for yourself and personal consumption. If you try to sell 5lbs, you will have a problem. Herbal drugs will be choice, synthetic compounds will still be controlled and be illegal as a principle, heroin, crack ect ect.
So on that principle if we are viewed as threat to the status quo power sharing parties and they see our ranks swell and voters seeing how simple it can be. Mission accomplished. Make no mistake, when we become a threat as we are now, they will turn from each other and collectively attack us. This is coming and they know it, especially in Ontario as we are signing up hundreds more each week, people have woken up over the hydro file and want to take their lives back from government control, now that they can finally see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waftrudnir
there is a risk benefit ratio to any drug. without looking at the pot example in particular, the delineation of herbal vs. synthetic is not overly sound when it comes to negative health impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
prescription drugs have been evaluated that their positive impact outweighs the negative impact; hence reduces cost to the health care system.
most "recreational" drugs bear a huge long-term price tag that burdens our health care system (and nobody wants to talk about it). the only thing offsetting costs is reduced average life expectancy of drug addicts...
you are correct, now is a good time for small parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
don't forget that JT is milking the green agenda heavily. this used to be bread & butter for some; now it's either gone (or more likely, soon be spoiled for a decade or two). so, there will be change on that end of the envelope too.
your welcome; appreciate the mental exercise as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
for the record, I'm not a member of any party
I find it surprising that I've been the only one to stick my head out. could have to do with the title of the thread.
I don't vote for parties, I vote for people. I vote for the person I think has the character and integrity to pursue his claimed directions. Problem is: Some just say what many people like to hear in order to get elected and then New boss same as the old boss.
A good read so far....very interesting...keep at it boys, learning a lot:goodstuff:
Many of you know me on here as an ex injured vet, some have read my rants on the Conservatives over veterans affairs. Also, I was shocked to learn about gun rights, property rights, individual rights are next to non existent or so controlled you are at more risk than a criminal with a gun. I joined at 17 and bought hook line and sinker what I was fed for over 35 years. Switching from Conservative to Libertarian was not done lightly for me. I have been studying the what little policy I can find, but more importantly joining discussion groups and learning. When I decide to do something I am all in. The Libertarian Party represents a new way of thinking and doing government. More importantly it will give you property rights, self rights, gun rights, rights of self choice to govern your own life. I never knew how invasive the government is all aspect of my life, I bought the cool aid speak from all of them.
Do I expect we will form the next government in Ontario, maybe. I do expect we will get members in this house this time. Everyday I get to talk, chat and write about policies and ideas. If spreading the message about more freedoms is all I can do, then so be it. I do know that voting the way I have in the past and my loyalty to those voting patterns has not made a single difference in mine or my kids life, but maybe, just maybe I can leave something better for them. So win, lose or draw my efforts, votes and money will be going to change, change that will free us from most government controls, and return to us what everyone has had taken from them without their knowledge or permission...Your Rights to self and choice.
P.S. I anyone else has questions or wishes to debate more, please post your comments or questions.
I spent my lunch with an Anarchist debating the Libertarian Movement and how it fits for him. Libertarians have far right of arc anarchists, Centrist Libertarians, and far left (Conservative [small c]). The great part is we can sit in the same room and debate without fear of offending one and another. Our goals are all the same.
Here is the link to LP Pub Nights in your area
http://www.libertarian.on.ca/pub_nights
Lots of people agree in principle on the need for smaller government and property rights. However, and I said that earlier, the libertarians are out for lunch on the topic of immigration. Came across that one and thought it is worth sharing.
http://www.therebel.media/debunking_...ss_immigration
There is a much higher cost to the health care system through legal recreational drugs then pot will ever have, look at the impact of Alcohol and Tobacco on society and the health care system but yet people are allowed to have that choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waftrudnir
Many of the current illegal drugs should be treated the same way, abuse can and will occur if the drugs, legal or not, is abused by the individual.
Stats Can 2015 Death and Injury by Alcohol Motor Vehicle
718 total
122 Deaths
596 injuries
Stats Can 2015 Total Murders
604
Cant find a breakdown, but 80% are suicides.
did you read that part of my post where I wrote "[COLOR=#333333]without looking at the pot example"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
differentiating between herbal and synthetic origin is misleading; ask anyone who picks mushrooms
do you know what Health Canada has been doing in preparation for the leaglisation of cannabis, just to make sure it doesn't take an ugly turn? cannabis has a fairly good safety profile and has been extensively used. so the risk is rather low.
with other illegal drugs, well many have proven to be the opposite! and misuse of prescription drugs falls into the same category. so if one would argue that the prescription and controlled substances systems have issues, the solution is certainly not to do away with them.
when it comes to choice, fine. there have been (financially motivated) studies on the use of cannabis vs. alcohol, which found that in the end "consumer" behaviour will not significantly change; i.e. people will not switch from alcohol to cannabis.
both are not great health choices and there is no significant change to health care costs anticipated with its legalization.
that would be vastly different with other substances! there isn't much else out there (and i will certainly not give anyone ideas here), where one could make a case like it has been done for pot.
[COLOR=#444444]Driving after marijuana use is more common than driving after alcohol use. College and high-school seniors who drove or rode with a driver after alcohol or marijuana use. Among college students who used in the past month, nearly 1 in 3 drove after marijuana use and nearly 1 in 2 rode with a driver who had been using marijuana[COLOR=#444444]3[COLOR=#444444]. Among high-school seniors, in the past 2 weeks, 1 in 8 drove after marijuana use and 1 in 5 rode with a driver who had been using marijuana[COLOR=#444444]4[COLOR=#444444]. The bar chart shows that 7% of college students drove after drinking alcohol and 31% drove after using marijuana; while 16% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol and 45% rode with a driver who used marijuana. Among high-school seniors, 9% drove after drinking alcohol and 12% drove after using marijuana; while 15% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol and 20% rode with a driver who used marijuana.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/drugged-driving
Alcohol and marijuana are not the leading cause of vehicle deaths/accidents anymore. Distracted driving is.
But that's not to say don't work on both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
Yep,yep. Penalties for both are still too light. Until we get really nasty with "no recog/no bail/no credit for pre-trial custody/time served" jail time and fine structures that will bankrupt a small nation,we'll never make any headway.
This is true and rising each day...Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
A couple of points:
Libertarians - the plural for Libertarian
Libertarian's - the possessive form (for example, the Libertarian's pot growing operation protected by a couple of Libertarians riding motorcycles without helmets)
Regarding the drug discussion - legalizing drugs would not mean that people would be allowed to endanger others or cause property or bodily destruction. It would change the current paternalistic dynamic between the citizen and the government and transfer the responsibility onto the individual. You drink and drive - you pay for the consequences.
Immigration - that is the most contentious point. If Libertarian Canada with only 36 million would have an open border policy then the entire system would collapse under the weight of uncontrolled third world immigration.
The problem with the libertarian philosophy is practicality. It is a bit utopian and probably doesn't stand a chance of being achieved through a peaceful transition of power.
Lastly, line 052, many true libertarians would be averse to advertising their party affiliation on the internet. Even the pub nights may be too public a forum for them. It seems like you have taken the "red pill". Good luck in the next election.
Haha.
Regarding the drug discussion - legalizing drugs would not mean that people would be allowed to endanger others or cause property or bodily destruction.
Answer: You are correct - but what you do on your own property or by yourself is your business. With the freedom to chose, comes the responsibilities to respect others rights as well.
It would change the current paternalistic dynamic between the citizen and the government and transfer the responsibility onto the individual. You drink and drive - you pay for the consequences.
Answer: So you are saying that your ok with government in control of your individual rights? It is the paternalistic dynamic description that you are using is the true definition of Nanny State. That leads me to believe that you are ok with this set up. Great, I support your free will to choose your lifestyle. Me not so much.
Immigration - that is the most contentious point. If Libertarian Canada with only 36 million would have an open border policy then the entire system would collapse under the weight of uncontrolled third world immigration.
Answer: Never said that, I said the government would not fund any travel or support to come to Canada. The government would conduct security checks of entering/applying at point of departure (country). I said private sponsorship would be the only means of immigration, where the sponsor is solely responsible for the immigrant and not the government. I also said it would contain a timeframe to integrate into Canada, job, income.
On the contrary, I feel your statement is rife with discrimination in the sense you do not wish immigration and seem to fear the masses in your statement. We feel that immigration is needed and must occur, what race or religion is not important, what is important is we stop funding government immigration all together.
The problem with the libertarian philosophy is practicality. It is a bit utopian and probably doesn't stand a chance of being achieved through a peaceful transition of power.
If you follow politics at all, you will see that Maxime Bernie is espousing Libertarian's statements in his bid for Cons Leadership Race. He is speaking directly on the 10 tenets of party policy. SO it does stand a change, if we can get people like you to break free of your government controlled and educated mind. To understand that Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a false and untrue document and I ask you if you have ever tried to exercise those freedoms. I have as a veteran, protesting vets rights on Parliament Hill (and denied due to lack of permit), had our Bull horns seized (city of Ottawa By-Law), told if we gathered in groups of three or more we would be charged with trespass. You see, I believed/brainwashed/educated like you that these were inherent rights, it what defended for 30 years as a soldier, having completed 9 missions and 2 wars. I ate it all up... bringing freedom and democracy to world. To learn...what we don't have it at home, you don't have the right to defend your property, limited self defence rights, no property rights, limited and restricted free speech (lol), limited free assembly. No I think you are the one who is fooled by system.
Lastly, I am not an educated man with a college degree, or university degree. My spelling and grammar is based on MS Word help. So continue to correct away. But I can tell you I am a father, a decent man, a stand up guy, a loyal friend, a loyal husband and veteran who served his country and was injured 3 times doing so. So, if feel the need to correct my spelling or word smithing, please go ahead, it is how I learn.
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonid
it was interesting and going fine until salmomheed butted in
I was having such a good, educational read.
Please....do continue.
First off line052, good on you. Seems we share many of the same views. I'm glad I'm not alone.
I'm not a member, but I do identify as a libertarian. The platform may need some tweaking, but the general idea is sound enough (in my mind). My issue with joining the party - whether at the provincial or federal level - is the stigma associated with the libertarian movement. As with any group, there are extremists that push the envelope. Libertariansim is often compared to objectivism. If you know who Ayn Rand is, you might be familiar with the philosophy. In either case, the movements don't have much traction in Canada. The best option - for me anyway - is to find a libertarian within another party and support him or her. Maxime Bernier is a good example.
I can agree with you on far left (anarchists) and far right Small c Conservatives. I find it refreshing to listen the far left no government at all, zero taxation points. The best thing it does is give my full left and right of arc for policy. I am dead in the middle and 100% percent with way the party platform is contrived right. The reality is, it will 25 yrs to get to the left, to many programs and ways of life would be affected, by drastic change. SO the main this we will do is tax rates, but it comes with cut backs in Gov workers, mostly high paid middle management (particularly health care), next up would be Hydro. Those are things we can do right away to help people be able to live more. As for MB, there is great debate internally over his using our 10 tenants of policy. I for one am against it and have wrote quite a bit on it in the members forums. Some see it as exposure for the party, myself I say join us and use your media for our. His voting record under Harper, is/was not libertarian in any way shape of form. As for stigma, bring it on. You will either meet people who no matter how you try to debate policy...they will never see past what you are saying and attack you. Then some of those I have had the pleasure to debate have switched parties and joined. The there is people who are like you (and me), people who are open to listen to ideas. Even if they don't sign up or vote, those are refreshing people to speak with. We will have many attack ads thrown our way in the next while and I welcome the challenge. Funny, I have become more tolerant of others views as a libertarian then I was as a Con and prefer to debate policies with the attacksQuote:
Originally Posted by awndray
On the subject of libertarianism and other parties, here's an excerpt (33:05) from an interesting interview with Dr. Mike Munger, professor of political science & economics at Duke University, writer, and 2008 Libertarian candidate for Governor of North Carolina.
youtu.be/-FlQ1iDZxnEQuote:
Dave Rubin - political commentator, satirist, and talk show host
What do you think is the reason that the Libertarians haven't done more at the State level? When people talk about the Libertarians, they go 'well Gary Johnson' or whatever it is. And yes there is Rand Paul, but technically he's a Republican. There's Justin Amash. there's a couple people, but why haven't they done more just on the local leve? This seems like a major opening for them.
Dr. Mike Munger - professor of political science & economics at Duke University, writer, and 2008 Libertarian candidate for Governor of North Carolina
Coming over here, I was promising myself I wasn't going to answer this question, but what the heck. I'll say, here's what happens at Libertarian meetings. The first one, twenty or thirty people show up and they're all enthusiastic. and at the second meeting, ten people show up, and the ten say 'I'm really glad those others didn't come back. They weren't real Libertarians,' because what they're mainly concerned about is checking each other's papers. So you can tell if it's a real Libertarian meeting by how long is it before there's an argument about whether individuals should be able to own nuclear weapons.
Nobody cares about that. When I was running for Governor, people would say 'Would you end the Fed?' I'm running for Governor, actually. This is not... 'Yeah, but I wanna know.' So what we really care about is ideological purity, because if you cared about actualy policy or winning, you would suck it up and be a Democrat o Republican.
So the problem that we have as Libertarians is, I don't think people conceive themselves as being part of a political process. They think of themselves as Oh Trey, as being outside and truth tellers -- the keepers of a last flickering remnant of truth. And that's just not a very effective political strategy.
DR
That's interesting because to me -- after doing this show for about two years and having a lot of classical liberals on, a lot of libertarians and I've had progressives and conservatives and everything -- basically, the difference that I see between classical liberals and libertarians is a little more realistic utility for the State. So when someone comes in with that question and says to you, 'Well are you going to get rid of the Fed? You've got money for Governor.' That's a really high-level philosophical thing that, to me, it's just a more realistic approach to how to change things. Do you think that's a fair assessment?
MM
Yes. And I've made a distinction in a couple of things that I've written between Directionalist and Destinationist Libertarians. Destinationist Libertarians have a particular Libertopia in mind, and anything that's not like that is out. Directionalists would want to say, 'are there policies that we could choose that would be cheaper, lower deficits, lower the power of the State and increase personal responsibility and liberty?' So an example would be, when I was running for Governor, my educational platform was vouchers. And a lot of people -- means-tested vouchers -- so the poorest forty percent would get more school choice. Many of the wealthy have it now. Let's have more school choice for the very poor. And a lot of people on the Left were kind of interested in that. There's a lot of African-American citizens that are desperate to get their children into better schools.
Libertarians almost without exception said 'oh no, the State would be involved in that'. The only acceptable Libertarian policy is the immediate elimination of all taxes.
DR
Right. Again, this is the part that is not the realistic part.
MM
Because they're Destinationists. So the Destinationists are always going to be there. Libertarians, if they're going to have any success, are going to have to appeal to the Directionalists in both parties that say 'look, the government has too many powers'. We may disagree about how far back we want to move it, but let's move the train in the other direction. We're going the wrong way. I think there's a consensus. We should move it back. Where we get off the train, that's a different question. But let's change the direction.
There is a distinct difference between the agenda in the USA and Canada when it come to Libertarians. Americans have many more inherent rights then Canadians do. We used to have them, we are trying to get back some of those basic rights, as part of our platform. For the Ontario Libertarian Party here is the link to our principles.
https://www.libertarian.on.ca/conten...and-principles
STATEMENT OF ULTIMATE GOALS
A. Libertarian Statement of Principles
We, the members of the Ontario Libertarian Party, support the following principles:
1.Each individual has the right to his or her own life, and this right is the source of all other rights.
2.Property rights are essential to the maintenance of those rights.
3.In order that these rights be respected, it is essential that no individual or group initiate the use of force or fraud against any other.
4.In order to bar the use of force or fraud from social relationships and to place the use of retaliatory force under objective control, human society requires an institution charged with the task of protecting individual rights under an objective code of rules. This is the basic task, and the only moral justification for, government.
5.The only proper functions of government, whose powers must be constitutionally limited are: •settling, according to objective laws, disputes among individuals, where private, voluntary arbitration has failed;
•providing protection from criminals;
•providing protection from foreign invaders.
6.As a consequence of all the above, every individual -- as long as he or she respects the rights of others -- has the right to live as he or she alone sees fit, as a free trader on a free market.
First off, owning ones self rights and property rights are the first steps to achieving this goal.
Our platform on property rights will remove the power of OMB, MPAC and Conservation Authorities to ensure the homeowners and landowners have first right of refusal to enter into or onto peoples private property, unless invited or with a court order
https://www.libertarian.on.ca/platfo...roperty-rights
The Ontario Libertarian Party will say loud and clear - "Back Off Government"!
Here's how:
•Government agents will have no special privilege under the Ontario Trespass Act
•Conservation Authorities and any other Department or Agency will have no jurisdiction over privately owned property. What this means for instance is the operator of a bar or restaurant can allow smoking on the premises without Government interference so long as the property owner is in agreement.
•The Ontario Building Code Act will be amended so that it does not apply on a mandatory basis. Property owners can use the Code as guidance if they like. There will be no restrictions on off-grid solar installations.
•Municipal Bylaw inspectors will have no right of entry or inspection uninvited without a judge's order.
•Reduce the Ontario Land Transfer Tax to be a flat fee of $275 instead of the current fee that is based on the property value.
That is how we will say loud and clear "Back Off Government"!
If you are further interested the rest of the Platform links are here.
I should note: Our Official Platform has been released Since June 2017... It is not changing, however, it is nice to see the current PC Leaders taking our platform points.
https://www.libertarian.on.ca/platform/platform2018
Those points are exactly why the libertarians have never received more than 0.25%, (1 out of 400), of the vote, less than a quarter of 1% of people agree with their-your stance. It might make you feel good about running alterative policies to the mainstream parties, but 99.75% of the voters think you are nuts. Sorry, I did not mean pass judgement on your parties intellect, 99.75 of the voters do not agree with you.
Well...I guess we will just have to wait until June 8th in Ontario to see if we improve those results. By all of our metrics, we are growing in leaps and bounds in the popular choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
A growth in leaps and bounds for your party would be a couple dozen more people. Good luck.
I find that hard to believe and have not come across anyone going over to the Libertarian party. However I have come across a few going over to the Trillium party. I just checked the Libertarian Party website and found it to be very vague. I tried to find a map of local Libertarian representatives in my neck of the woods and could'nt find anything. I went over to the Trillium party website and immediately found a list of Ontario towns/cities with Trillium party representatives. The Trillium website contained more information and more professional. The Libertarian website seemed as if a grade 5 had done it as a class project.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
As a conservationist and as the spouse of a resource conservation specialist for a local CA, I have a problem with this part of the platform. There's a reason CA's exist and operate. People like to on them. I have the impression these people are misguided, or ignorant to what a CA's mandate is. If you're an outdoorsman and claim to care about the lands and waters you and other outdoorsmen enjoy, I would hope that you care enough to allow CA's to do what they're mandated to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by line052
And when the floodwaters come, what then? Fend for yourself? Good luck.Quote:
That is how we will say loud and clear "Back Off Government"!
Find out " How Much of a Libertarian You Are, by taking this short quiz "
https://www.theadvocates.org/results/right?x=30&y=70
I find that I am not, I am " Right Conservative ".
It appears to me that a good portion of the platform is Federally mandated. The Province has no control.
I would tend to agree with you. I think the Conservation Authorities play a big role in responsible development....ever wonder why there seems to be so much damage from flooding down south each year and less up here ? Not building in flood plains and proper planning !Quote:
Originally Posted by awndray