Dániel Boros

This is not direct democracy. In direct democracy you vote on policy not on people and you only need a small number of people to pass any law. What I suggest in reality isn't any more direct than what we already have. I am not arguing for direct democracy which is: If the opinion of the voters don't matter why not have a totalitarian government?

Depends on what you mean by problem. It sure would be interesting how voters would react when the legislation passing laws that allows the indefinite detention of American citizens. Or when someone wants to bail out banks that are too big to fail. Or when the President wants to go to war with someone nobody cares about. This system is meant for the federal government not for law enforcement. I wouldn't put the poll tax too heigh otherwise voters won't vote at all. I would say 20$-30$.

Since it is election season I thought it's time to share with you one of my ideas on democracy. Every 4 years new people are elected to the federal government as representatives. Now to me that 4 years sounds a bit much. If I elect someone and that someone doesn't do what he tolled me he would do I can't get back my vote. I have to wait four years to take away my vote from the representative who did not represent me. On the market If I don't like a service I can stop using it. If I don't think my stock will go up I can sell it. If I don't think I will get a job in the town I live I can move. Politicians often only care about their last year even though they were elected for four. So how about this? What if there were no elections at all, and instead you would have a token that you could always get back and give to someone else. If some politician had the most tokens of a district he would be the one that could stay in Washington. If someone looses so many tokens that someone else actually has more than the guy in Washington would be replaced by the new guy. I would suggest a small fee you would need to pay when you give your token to someone else, but other than that you could select anyone at any time. With our modern technology a system like that which was impossible back in the 18 hundreds could be easily created. I'm sure someone will point out that kicking out a politician while he is working could lead to some unintended consequences, but don't forget, this is how markets work. that will be all peace

I think that is the cause of the kind of group mentality I spoke of but not necessarily the reason why a third party never gets in. Jefferson was the first to form a "party" so it is indeed a very old tradition, but I don't think that the average voter is just as much aware of the facts as you are. The notion that other parties can't ever win has been embedded into the psyche of most Americans. Fact is he is not a pacifist nor is he a isolationist, but I do agree the media sold that idea well to the public. Jeopardize the country's security? Which country are you referring to if I may ask? The one with more guns than anyone else, or are we talking about South Korea, Japan or maybe Germany perhaps? Also as far as I can tell most Americans are already tired of the wars, but please correct me if I am wrong. When Obama said last election "I will bring back the troops, you can take that to the bank" was he going for the fringe vote?

Yes indeed. Plus money as well. If we are talking about general voters. Yes certainly. I'm not sure if the green party could be described as fringe though. I would also note that Ron Paul got where he is now by always voting on principle. It seems that particular principle is very different from the one TOS is advocating for. While he did not become the nominee he did achive a lot in terms of shifting the questions to the points that are the most important. The FED, the debt, spending, govenrment intervention etc... Why do you think Paul Ryan became the VP nominee? Romney wants to get the liberty voters and activists with someone who advocates free markets but won't vote on principle. So voting on a very straightforward principle is despite all odds a viably political strategy.

It is because of the "vote the lesser of two evils" mentality that the U.S. has a two party system. If everyone follows the herd there will be no third party candidates. Of course there will be none, but if a substantial number of people refuse to vote things may change one day. So Mr. Poker since you have been using this strategy how much did you win? The strategy isn't working. In Atlas Shrugged the capitalists supported big government by simply doing what they do best. Making stuff, yet the people who would rather go to Galt's Atlantis seem to be always wrong.

If Ayn Rand was running third party TOS would still vote either democrat or republican. It is interesting that a non aggressive foreign policy is deemed insane, but supporting dictators with money in the Middle East is totally okay.

Sorry. I just couldn't stop myself saying it like that, since we were discussing libertarians being anti war.

So it was a preemptive strike in the form of a threat based on second hand accounts. I still think it was inappropriate.

Now now, someone with one post should not be so prejudiced. I doubt it's going to be deleted. I have written a lot of things that were much worse than this

If he's not an employee than there's no reason to fire him, but that doesn't mean he should not be criticized.

thanks it was very good

Nicky you are so negative I wouldn't say they share a singular vision. I would say most of them share the right vision, which is why they nominate people like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, but that is only my opinion. Btw. Gary Johnson is Polling at 10%. I agree that objectivists and libertarians differ from one another in very important ways. I would also say that man and woman differ from each other in very important ways, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't work together. To me that doesn't seem so bad, but who knows maybe he is the exception. The libertarian party seemed okay to me. I wouldn't say they are perfect. I think pointing out that there are some libertarians on forums and elsewhere who do not agree on some issues is a bit of a straw man. I never said or implied to work for anarchy with anarcho-capitalists. Also libertarain used to be a term that meant social anarchist. So there's a potential straw men as well. It's not like everyone who claims to be an objectivist agrees with every other objectivist. If the things you said are in some libertarian party document, than I shall gladly accept my defeat. Maybe I should refer to them as enlightened classical liberal libertarians from now on.

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/through-the-wormhole-human-clones.htm As far as I can tell human cloning is ethical as long as it is voluntary. Maybe there should be some copyright on someone's genom, but other than that I can't see anything wrong with it... ...but maybe I am wrong.

43 minute mark: #t=2596s

And here we are criticizing libertarians for not being unified.

I don't get it Isn't it a bit unfair to say everything. As far as I can tell the difference is only in implementation and not in principle. Also isn't the whole point of this topic is that ideological differences that don't change the common goal of a group don't necessarily matter in politics?

I did not wish speak about any particular group like the LP, but since my argument was attacked from the point of view that there are many who claim to be libertarian, but are socialists and anarchist I had to point out that there are those who aren't and that the groups no objectivist would support aren't the ones I was referring to with the label libertarian. I did not start this topic to find out why Objecitivists don't support libertarians. I am fairly aware of the reason. I made a positive argument for the "unification" on the political level not on the epistemological or moral levels. Just as individually objectivists can support this guy or that guy so can they the support a group. By support I mean vote or provide money or join. I do not see any moral difference between the methods of supporting a party. Support is support. A is A. We also know that doing something alone or in a group won't make any difference in a moral context. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Mary Ruwart or any other anarchist never got the nomination in the end. There is a anarcho capitalist wing of the libertarian party just like there is a libertarian wing of the republican party. Those kind of things are normal even in a one party socialist system. What is more interesting is why there isn't an objectivist wing of the libertarian party. What could we loose? My argument is that we would gain and not loose. They are subjectivist? Teach them objectivism. They misrepresent ideas? Put their ideas in the right place. An anarcho capitalist is running for nomination? Vote for an objectivist. These things happen because objectivists aren't there. If the people with objective moral values are not in a party than the party will not have objective values. I have been part of a political organisation for many years and I think the objectivist view of politics is a bit naive. If you discriminate people too much in a party that can only survive on votes you will eventually destroy the whole movement the same way objectivists split again and again. That may be fine for a movement and for objectvism but for a political party, not so much. A party needs votes a party needs numbers a party needs majority, a movement does not. Different contracts need different terms. The irony here is that because objectivists refuse to be active and take risks their ideas will never be at the place they were meant to be.

He is not running now am I right? I mean that was like what 25 years ago? If that guy were the candidate I would see no reason to support the LP, but he's not.

What gave you the idea that libertarians agree with my version of capitalism? I never said or implied such a thing. You're the one who brought up my old topics. No Libertarian not even anarcho-capitailsts would agree with me on that topic just like no objectivist does, which again is another example of the two being similar.

I guess you are right. In my version of capitalism government would hold absolute force, but would not have a monopoly. However the state would still defend the rights of the people through contractors, and would punish the contractors if needed be so it is still capitalism. The role of the government is still to defend the rights of man, and it is still done through objective law. Just as any objectivist would want it. By the way in the U.S. prisons are often operated by contractors and while in that case that's not a very good idea it is still a fact that a private force keeps people in jail. Supposedly such a thing should lead to something very bad if what I propose is wrong. Anyway I don't see how my personal opinion matters in this case. It's not like I am recruiting for anybody. I am only talking about policy, whether it's objectively right or wrong has little to do with me. Well I do think objectivism and libertarianism in some way are similar, but that's not my point. My point is that as long as there is a common political goal there's really no reason to join together as long as ones principles don't have to be changed. The philosophy is different, if we can call libertarianism a philosophy, but the goals the real goals are mostly the same. Except for the war issue. As I said it's a trade. Look et christians. The only reason they are a political force is because they can put aside their differences in politics for their common goals. Even a mormon could become a president, but not an atheist.

You are not wrong, but as you said that has little to do with objectvism in general. Which is why I don't think it's relevant...