In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
“A market economy is to economics what democracy is to government: a decent, if flawed, choice among many bad alternatives.” -- Charles Wheelan, "Naked Economics"
Comments
1) Whatever Jeff Greenfield writes is the final and unequivocal truth for you.
2) Libertarianism has no fundamental principles - it is whatever any Libertarian or anybody else says it is. So Eric Dondaro's Libertarianism is equally as valid as Steve Newton's Libertarianism which is equally as Anonone's Libetarianism. In other words, Libertarianism is a meaningless label.
3) In spite of Jeff Greenfield's declaration, the Republican Party platform in regards to abortion does, in fact, represent the views of most republican representatives, including Paul Ryan.
4) I understand why you hate me quoting the Libertarian Platform because it does espouse a heartless, cruel, and socially backward government that places property rights solely and squarely above all else, including human life and dignity.
5) Anyone who is running as a Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, or whatever, deserves to have their party platform hung around their neck. They can choose to be proud of it or ashamed of it. It is not surprising that you're ashamed of your party platform. Unfortunately, there are many Libertarians who are not.
a1
You are free to do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with the same right in another.
To secure this right, we should restrict government to a specific few areas of action. Defense, Judicial Equity, Police and maintenance of a minimal social safety net (food, shelter, medical care, education).
There you have the anonymous political platform. Note the use of the small l.
So you can make up anything that you want about Libertarianism to try to hide what it actually stands for, but the truth is written for all to see.
Unfortunately, anyone running for ANY office in the US today has to have one of these platforms hung around their necks because the Dems and GOPers have made it virtually impossible for anyone to run as an independent even if they are wealthy.
So I should choose between warmonging, anti-civil-rights Democrats (who promise wonderful tea and crumpets but don't actually DO anything); warmongering, anti-civil-rights, anti-abortion rights, anti-gay rights GOPers whose major believable promise is that they will gut the social safety net, or I could run with the only party that is against interventionist war, for civil liberties, for marriage equality, and weak on civil rights and the social safety net.
Frankly, I will take the Libertarian view and disavow the parts I don't like, just as EVERY F--KING GOPer or Dem ignores the parts of theirs they don't like.
Because the only other game in town is to be a high-minded anonymous commenter who damns everything and is unwilling to stick his/her neck into the fray to change anything.
The RNC & DNC platforms blather on for hundreds of pages. Ours, like it or not, is sufficiently short and to the point that people actually read it
"Nobody cares what party platforms say anymore" is a pretty sweeping statement. While candidates and incumbents certainly don't care, it's hard to say whether the rest of us don't or do care. Though one can speculate that the decreasing voter participation indicates that the electorate suspects that their politicians basically say things they don't believe to get elected.
Personally, I care. Which is why I'm voting Green, not D, R or L, because of these parties rhetorical(e.g. platforms) and/or implemented attacks on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.
If the Libertarian Party does not believe what it says, anymore than the D & R party, why should the voters?
Oh, and they believe in strengthening public education, not weakening it.
http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/index.php
"More Americans express interest in learning about what’s in the GOP platform than in the speeches by either Mitt Romney or his running mate. About half of the public (52%) is interested in learning about the Republican Party’s platform, while 44% are interested in Romney’s acceptance speech and about the same percentage (46%) in Ryan’s convention speech."
http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/27/more-interest-in-gop-platform-than-romneys-speech/
So, that pretty much settles the argument whether or not the callous Libertarian party platform is of interest to voters.
Tomorrow, when the RNC Convention is no longer news everyone will go back to not paying attention to the GOP Platform.
Ryan will have an easier time of it than Romney because he is a true believer.
Anyway, if I were running against a Libertarian, I would make them defend their national platform simply because then people would see how heartless and backward it is and they are.
a1