[Chefelf]

Nader enters race for White House
Last Updated Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:53:52

WASHINGTON - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is throwing his hat into U.S. presidential race again, this time as an independent.

Nader stood as a Green Party candidate in the 2000 vote. Many Democrats blame him for Al Gore losing the election against George W. Bush.


Ralph Nader on Meet the Press

Nader announced he was entering the race Sunday morning on NBC's Meet the Press. Nader said he wants take on the Republicans and Democrats because they've turned Washington into "corporate occupied territory."

"This country has more problems and injustices than it deserves," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/st.../22/nader040222

I am torn between saying: "Yaaaaay!" and "Here we go again."

[Heccubus]

I just don't care anymore. As long as the US public use their heads and vote a new president in, I'll be happy.

[K1NGWARREN]

Listen, there's zero chance that Nader will actually win much less come close. His candidacy is a play to remind Kerry that there are plenty of voters out there who will abandon him (Kerry) in favor of Nader if Kerry strays too far toward the center. All in all, it's a smart move to keep a progressive agenda on the table and put the pressure on Kerry.

[Paladin]

I'm not an American(I'm Lebanese), but after years of keeping an eye on American politics, I would say the best candiate would be a Libertarian. It's time Americans realized that neither the Democrats or the Republicans are any good.

What's your opionon?

[Chefelf]

Personally I agree. The sad fact is that due to the way our presidential elections are set up there's really no chance for any third part at this point. Even if a third party gets recognized it's--for the time, anyway--just going to be a battle between the Democrats and Republicans.

If you live in a small state, as I and K1NGWARREN do, you really have no say in the election. We live in Rhode Island. No matter who I or K1NGWARREN vote for, our state's votes will go to the Democratic candidate as they always do. We can vote for Bush, Kerry, Nader or ourselves. It doesn't really matter.

People blame Nader for Gore losing the last election. Others blame Florida and there may be some merit in that. You have to hang some of the blame on Gore running his campaign like a damn fool.

Also about blaming Nader for Gore losing the election, Bill Maher had an interesting statistic: 1,000,000 gay people voted for Bush, why not blame them for Gore losing the election?

Ultimately the Nader votes didn't amount to much, even in swing states thanks to the Electoral College system that Bush pledged so vehemently to update right after the election. A few months later everyone had forgotten about it.

[jyd]

I say..we all write in Chefelf and see what happens

[civilian_number_two]

I'm not an American(I'm Lebanese), but after years of keeping an eye on American politics, I would say the best candiate would be a Libertarian. It's time Americans realized that neither the Democrats or the Republicans are any good.

What's your opinion?

If by Libertarian you mean a reduced government whose only purpose is to protect commerce and to defend its borders against invasion, then I disagree.

Would-be libertarians always complain about America, as though there were some more prosperous model to compare it with. A Libertarian government, run ideally, would allow for untold wealth to accumulate in even fewer hands while the rest of the country starved and died of diseases with unprofitable cures. I don't think this would be an improvement, even for the rich people.

The Republicans and the Democrats have, over the last century or so, built the United States into the most prosperous, the most free, and the best defended nation on Earth. It was no fluke. To say that they have their faults is correct, and to say the nation could stand imrovement is small talk. But to suggest complete abandonment of the system that made America is blindness.

[Paladin]

And just how would massively reducing the amount of government involvement, which has historically done mostly harm, put all the profits in the hands of a few and leave many to starve?

America, for most of the 20th century, had free markets and little government regulations. During the 1950's, American income tax rates were roughly 2% and Americans enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world. In the 1890's, America was as close as it ever was to a pure capitalist state and it was growing at an enormous rate.

I don't agree with what you said, less government regulations and taxes will mean more profits for every one, and will enable more business to suceed. Government involvement almost never has any real benefit in the long run.

Here are some links for you to read:

Ludwing von Mises Institute

And the Libertarian party website.

Trust me, you have a lot more to learn than you think.

[civilian_number_two]

During the 1950s Americans enjoyed the greatest population growth in the nation's history. Capitalism is based on growth.

Your argument that "government involvement almost never has any real benefit in the long run" implies that American history has been one of limited or zero government involvemnent. I think I disagree. It was tax dollars that built the interstates, the backbone of late-twentieth-century national commerce.

The classical Libertarian viewpoint is that the only purpose of a government is to protect individuals against violence and business from government interference. The government should not, they say, invest even in medical research that is not profitable; it should privatize all government industry (including road mainteneance); and it should allow businesses to mandate the minimum wage and to police their own environmental impact. There should be no public land, since that involves illegal control of wealth, and it should not fund the arts or involve itself in social spending.

A truly libertarian government would therefore privatize all park land, would close the public schools, would eliminate welfare and would privatize all of the hospitals. It would have no foreign trade policies, no foreign policy of any kind, really. It would make no effort to regulate its economy. It would do nothing for its citizens when they lost their jobs to cheaper, out-of-country labour, and it would suffer as much as anyone when suddenly there were no vaccines for anything. If the poor became violent, or if thse who kept their jobs threatened strike action, then the government would protect the businesses from the violent poor, seeing as that is its only role.

Maybe you don't mean a truly libertarian government. If by libertarian you simply mean another right-wing party, like the Republicans but smaller, and fully in support of the vital social programs like the interstate highways, public schools and medical research, then of course I agree that it couldn't hurt. But that sort of a government isn't really "libertarian," and hardly worth gettig on a high horse about.

Is the system perfect? Hell, no. Bush is out there right now saying that "history has shown that it is the union of a man and a woman that leads to stable families" in an effort to change the constitution to ban gay marriages. (If that's the case, what he should do is make divorce illegal ... duh!) The system is pretty damn boneheaded. But if you think that the corporations are there to help America, you've got the wrong idea. Libertarianism is about using government to help people who are already rich. It is not about managing a society, and managing a society is the exact function of a government.

[Paladin]

During the 1950s Americans enjoyed the greatest population growth in the nation's history. Capitalism is based on growth.

Exactly, Libertarianism promotes Capitalism in its full glory, with as little government involvement as possible.

Your argument that "government involvement almost never has any real benefit in the long run" implies that American history has been one of limited or zero government involvemnent. I think I disagree. It was tax dollars that built the interstates, the backbone of late-twentieth-century national commerce.

I never said America had no government involvment. I don't want to have zero government involvement in things, but having all the excesses that we do now is definately not doing the American economy any good. American manufacturers and innovators are spending too much time complying with all the taxes and laws and whatnot than on innovation and development, all of which would lead to better growth and more jobs, as well as raising America's position in the World market.

The classical Libertarian viewpoint is that the only purpose of a government is to protect individuals against violence and business from government interference. The government should not, they say, invest even in medical research that is not profitable; it should privatize all government industry (including road mainteneance); and it should allow businesses to mandate the minimum wage and to police their own environmental impact. There should be no public land, since that involves illegal control of wealth, and it should not fund the arts or involve itself in social spending.

A truly libertarian government would therefore privatize all park land, would close the public schools, would eliminate welfare and would privatize all of the hospitals. It would have no foreign trade policies, no foreign policy of any kind, really. It would make no effort to regulate its economy. It would do nothing for its citizens when they lost their jobs to cheaper, out-of-country labour, and it would suffer as much as anyone when suddenly there were no vaccines for anything. If the poor became violent, or if thse who kept their jobs threatened strike action, then the government would protect the businesses from the violent poor, seeing as that is its only role.

That would going too far, try reading Thispage to see the Libertarian party's positions on the issues you brought up. You don't seem to really know what they want.

Is the system perfect? Hell, no. Bush is out there right now saying that "history has shown that it is the union of a man and a woman that leads to stable families" in an effort to change the constitution to ban gay marriages. (If that's the case, what he should do is make divorce illegal ... duh!) The system is pretty damn boneheaded. But if you think that the corporations are there to help America, you've got the wrong idea. Libertarianism is about using government to help people who are already rich. It is not about managing a society, and managing a society is the exact function of a government.

The system is not perfect. No system is perfect. There never was, and never will be a perfect system. All we can do is stick to what works, America is becoming more and more socialist every day, and Capitalism is beomcing hounded at by Liberals and Left-wingers, and to be honest, I'm completely fed up with them all.

[rogue_scholar]

America is becoming more and more socialist every day.

What you're talking about is a normal chain of events that cannot be helped, (China, for example, is becoming more and more capitalist) but there's no reason to panic; America's not going to become completely socialist like most conservatives and libertarians like to argue. The economic growth that we saw in the past is precisely that, a thing of the past. Nothing lasts forever, and the good ol' days are gone, this is natural and everyone needs to get over it.

Speaking of the good ol' days, let's not forget that it was classical libertarian economics (aka laissez faire capitalism) that led to the Great Depression. The government has been intervening in the American economy since then because if it didn't the depression would only happen again.

In my experience, most individuals who argue in favor of libertarianism and against government intervention are simply pissed off that American corporations can't just do whatever they want anymore, like in the days before the Depression. Looking back at the living conditions of the average American before the Depression years, as well as American foreign policy (which was nothing more than gunboat diplomacy) I can't really say that governemnt intervention in business is all that bad a thing.

[Paladin]

No, the Great depression wasn't caused by unfettered capitalism. It's a very common myth to believe it, but here's a few links about it. THE GREAT DEPRESSION - Federal Meddling Made History

The Mysteries of The Great

Great Myths of the Great Depression

Read them, and you'll be amazed. There's more too, check out some facts about FDR, you'll be amazed to know that he was a communist.