The Movement, Party & DailyBOS

Why would a Libertarian vote for a Red or Blue ?

1. Their party wasn't on the ballot because of regressive and backward ballot access laws promulgated for over a 100 years. In Canada & Britain one can run for Parliament with a simple filing fee of about $1000. No help from the SCOTUS on this yet. Oddly enough they're all Dems or GOP.

2. Because lesser of two evils is often the only choice because a winner take all system (single plurality) favors two dominant factions. The 'civilized' world's democracy includes a system based on proportional representation.

What's the difference between the 'libertarian' movement & the Party ?

1. The movement sees discernible truths about the state and individual and can address each without a vested interest in power or control, having no monopoly in force or a desire to have either. For those interested the more scholarly aspects of Austrian Economics check out The Mises Institute.

2. While the Party and its members may also hold such views, it is demonstrably harder to get the average voter off the gravy train mentality that warfare and welfare promote. This is just as easy an explanation as any assertion that the Party's views are extreme or Utopian. See Steven Rosenstone's 'Third Parties in America' for greater detail about the real position they hold in the unjust process of American Democracy.

3. The movement doesn't consider political action worthwhile as long as the duo-opoly controls things. Education and more importantly, persuasion are the key elements to the movement. While most sane people just don't vote as a result of this (50% right?), there are quixotic individuals who will strive and fight against the repression that the two dominate parties offer despite being kicked in the teeth, laughed at and otherwise considered inferior simply because of holding contrary beliefs and having no real political input in discussion, media or other common outlets in the polity.

Put in the most stark of terms, if a person A were not the owner of his physical body and all goods originally appropriated, produced or voluntarily acquired by him, there would exist two alternatives. Either another person,B, must be regarded as the owner of A and the goods appropriated, produced or contractually acquired by A, or both parties, A and B, must be regarded as equal co-owners of both bodies and goods. In the first case B owns A and fails the 'universalization' test.

In the second case, co-ownership, while fulfilling the case for equal rights for everyone, the fatal flaw is that each person requires use of scarce goods (at least his/hers body and its standing room). If all goods are collective property, than no one at any time could do anything with anything unless he had every other co-owner's permission. How can one give such permission if one is not even the sole owner of one's very own body ? Humans would perish and fail if this were the case.

I have attempted to cancel my account at KoS and no one ever got back to me. So you get stuck with these types of posts occasionally. This will be cross posted at http://ericsundwall.com for those who wish to engage in a less hostile and less dismissive responses.