Libertarians. They're all over the internet, but seem to mysteriously vanish before election time. Their political ideals are based on the ideas that government intervention is a bad thing by default, social services are evil, and that humans and corporations can be trusted to regulate themselves.
But let's face it, they're never going to get widespread support. Even the stereotypical greedy Republican can probably cite some times when he benefited from tax money... be it something subtle like the government subsizing his state school education or something anyone but a Libertarian would take for granted like firefighters saving his house. Remember Hurricane Katrina? Were there cries of "where is the government? they aren't helping enough!" or was their widespread support to let the city and state take care of it because we wouldn't want them dependent on the federal government?
Abroad, we've seen economic miracles in South Korea and Japan in the mid-20th century. These were achieved by the government taking a guiding hand in business. Not only the US, but the world at large, has evolved beyond small governments. It simply would not work today.
In short, should time machines ever be invented, we need to send the Libertarians back in time to the 1890's to work as factory laborers. There, they'll see their paradise. They'll see first-hand how unnecessary minimum wage, social security, and the FDA are and how well corporate America regulates itself.
I am a Japanese.
so i would like to comment as a Japanese.
i cannot trust Japanese Left Wing and Libertarian people.
1994, Left Wing people could gain the regime.
they has insisted that they are against consumer's tax and Japanese self diffence force because of the Japanese constitution which claims Japan will not have the troops to solve international problems.
those ideals are pretty good but can you imagine what they did for us?
at the moment, when they got the regime, they throw away the message board saying `we are against the consumer's tax'
1995, Hansin dai sinsai(very big earthquake) attacked Kobe city and around there and that damage was so terrible.
but the prime minister didnt order the self deffence force to rescue victims soon and he rejected American offer to use their carriers and foreign volunteers.
more than 5000 people died by the earthquake.
they chose their ideals but people'lifes.
Japanese madeas are very good for Left Wing and Libertarians and they did't critisize the regime.
I believe if they didnt hesitate to use the force,
so many people could survive.
as the evidence, 2 years ago a very big earthquake attacked Niigata prefecture and at the moment, the regime was for the democratic conservertive party and the self diffence force worked very hard.
the victims was much less than Kobe's case.
Now the government tryes to creat the small goverment.
Japanse people used to be desasters and we are confident to re boult cities. in fact my city is aside a volcano which erupts almost everyday. so I dont worry for desasters but i cannot stand
to be betrayed by our medias and goverment.
Actually, "Libertarians" are different from "Liberals", and are a strange American invention. Nobody except Americans really understand what they are talking about.
Until I see a large-scale working libertarian society, I'm firmly of the belief it would be living hell. Privatization and non-intervention are not the answer to everything.
I think part of the problem is that the system is stacked against any third party. Dems and Reps control who gets on the debates, they have most of the money in the system. So Dems and Reps get most of the press, and are guarenteed to be on the ballot. They can buy more ads than libertarians (in fact, the only ad I ever heard for a libertarian was on late-night radio).
The result of all of this is that unless you're highly political AND someone points you to a Libertarian Party webpage -- chances are very high that you'll never have heard of the Libertarian. The same is, of course, true of all third parties. Unless you're too liberal for Democrats AND get pointed to the Green Party candidates and website, you probably won't have heard of any of them. It gets even worse if you get down to other parties, say the Socialist Party (actually, according to politics1.com there are several flavors) probably even those who are highly political and already agree have never heard of them.
Most people on the internet are young. But most people who actually vote are older. Most older people I know have never heard of thing I thought were common knowledge, but it is because I tend to talk to younger people like me.
the libertarian party will never ever benefit from the bleeding heart politics the united states has been trapped in since the nineties. ever.
Libertarianism: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.
Libertarians believe in trickle-down economics. If the rich benefit from a technology or discovery of some sort, the poor, eventually, will benefit as well. To an extent, this holds true, but not in the miraculous way that libertarians fortell.
I tend to think the trickle-down-ness depends on the industry, as well as how "fair" the markets are.
You simply can't have, for example 20 power plants competing for the money of the same town. It would be cost-prohibative to have that many redundant power lines and plants, to have tons of linemen and so on. Besides which, the costumer would have to have his house reconnected every time he wanted to switch companies. Fair market value just wouldn't work here.
Or health care. Health Care doesn't really trickle down, as almost everyone providing the HC is a white collar type professional. Improve a drug for heart disease, and it makes the job of the doctor easier, not the hospital cook. Besides that the cost doesn't go down because really, most people don't know enough medicine to know when they're being fleeced. They probably aren't going to bargin shop for a cut-rate surgeon either.
From this point, there are two options; implement socialistic policies, which will result in tax hikes. This only serves to further impoverish everyone involved. Or, we can just accept the fact that not everyone can benefit from a medical discovery or treatment. Life is inherently unfair, and therefore no one should make it even more so by penalizing the rest of society economically.
I don't see it as a penalty, really. There are circunstances where everyone might benefit from having a service available. Having a light rail system (almost always taxpayer funded), can help reduce congestion and bring new businesses to the city. Or Schools -- if a city has good schools, then businesses benifit from having educated employees. A good health care system can help everyone, because diseases don't stick around as long when peple can afford to see a doctor and get treated. A good proffessional police force keeps everyone's window from breaking.
It's just a question of which services give society as a whole a benefit. It doesn't always work that just because a service is provided by the government, that it's necessarily going to make the society a better place to live. If the government gives everyone free ice cream on friday, then that isn't something that greatly improves society.