Question for Libertarians (big L)

Shooting from the hip, so take this FWIW.

I think it's more of a cost / reward issue. Because the libertarians are a third party, any money or public support sent that way has to be a long term investment, while throwing money at your man of the hour in the "dem / rep" races gets your results in a much more immediate fashion, and endears your business to the overwhelming majority of customers who support one of the major parties.

In short it just doesn't pay.

I would suspect a large part of it is just putting your lobby allowance into the most effective place. The Libertarian party is unlikely to yield any return on that investment for many years even if you're help build a lot of steam.

i have to agree with Noxx here...
much like many voters turned off by the idea of "throwing their vote away",
most corporations probably want to back a [potential] winner.
great question, though...could you imagine what would happen if big companies not only contributed money, but actively got behind a libertarian candidate?
imagine the marketing personnel and budgets of madison avenue pushing libertarian candidates the way they push soft drinks, clothing, etc.

sounds like the premise for a sit-com.

So what is it about the Libertarian party that almost no major business supports them?

Click to expand...

Because the LP supports a true free market, not a rigged market (no farm subsidies, no monopolys for things like phone and cable companies). This is a big reason why I dont see any big business ever supporting them. They wont get favors.

Because the LP supports a true free market, not a rigged market (no farm subsidies, no monopolys for things like phone and cable companies). This is a big reason why I dont see any big business ever supporting them. They wont get favors.

Click to expand...

+1

Think about it, which would be easier for Corporations?

-Spend a whole mess of $$$ on building support for a relatively low-support party (Libertarians) and maybe get some momentum in local and state elections, but not a lot of results on a big scale.

-Spend a whole lot of $$$ on lobbying politicians in Washington, either (D) or (R) and get special favors for your Corporation in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, protectionism, etc.

I'm pretty sure I know which one most would choose.

Bartholomew Roberts said:

but by and large business would profit - no Medicare,

Click to expand...

If Libertarians were in charge though, insurance companies might lose their intrastate monopolies if people could buy insurance from anywhere. More competition would, in theory, mean lower prices. With less protectionist trade policy (and/or FDA reg's), it would be harder for pharmaceutical companies to jack up domestic drug prices while lowering foreign prices, since everyone could just buy identical meds from Canada for half price. And without Medicare negotiating/fixing prices for various medical procedures, hospitals might actually have to provide competitive prices to attract business from all those people Medicare formerly covered.

All in all, I think the status quo is more profitable to the health care industry.

Because it's not politically correct, unlike corporate America.

Why don't corporations support the Libertarian party? After all, there major platform is laissez-faire capitalism...

Click to expand...

Corporations don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism. They believe in using government power to their own advantage, whether it's through regulations that block competitors, or protectionist tariffs, or straight-up hand-outs. (The term for what corporations do today is "rent seeking.")


--Len.

Ratzinger-p38 said:

Because the LP supports a true free market, not a rigged market (no farm subsidies, no monopolys for things like phone and cable companies). This is a big reason why I dont see any big business ever supporting them. They wont get favors.

Click to expand...

[quote="budney']
Corporations don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism. They believe in using government power to their own advantage, whether it's through regulations that block competitors, or protectionist tariffs, or straight-up hand-outs.[/quote]

No other explanation needed.

It is a principle of business that you don't bother negotiating with an actor who is not in position to deliver the goods.

Or more to the point, you DO negotiate with the actor who CAN deliver the goods.

quod erat demonstrandum

Corporations don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism. They believe in using government power to their own advantage, whether it's through regulations that block competitors, or protectionist tariffs, or straight-up hand-outs.

Click to expand...

Well the flip side of this is the LP doesnt believe in raping them with fees and insane taxes. The Ds, and to a lesser extent the R's punish success in business.

Successful business people tend to think primarily about their business, not politics.

They DO have to plan for the winds of change...and the winds of change from the Libertarian front have been pretty calm for about 231 years.

Your question is actually about corporations.

Many Libertarians I know also HATE corporations, so why would any corporation back a LIbertarian candidate?

"Believe" and "achieve" are different.

As it stands, the Republicans have cut income taxes several times in my lifetime.

The Libertarians might believe in cutting them more, but they haven't actually DONE it, ever.

Businesses are about "achieve." Churches are about "believe."

And frankly, Libertarians don't have much to offer either the right or left side of the religion racket, either. Methodists (spelled "Marxist" and "anti-gun" of late) and "liberation theology" types including left-wing Catholics, Tony Campolo, et al., are hardly libertarian by any stretch. And the right wing churches, while often in de facto agreement with Libertarians, want promises of a ban on abortion, which Republicans make and Libertarians do not.

So the achievers aren't interested in those who haven't accomplished anything substantive and aren't positioned to do so. And the believers, who might accept "right-minded" as sufficient, aren't into liberty, ultimately.

This may not make me happy, but these are facts.

Now rent-seeking certainly plays into this as well, though it tends to favor only the largest corporations. If I go bankrupt, that's just tough. If the Savings and Loans go bankrupt, I as a middle class American am taxed and they are given the money. But this only goes for the largest of businesses (and labor unions, too). The remainder don't get to seek rent, they, like individuals, get to pound sand.

The Libertarians might believe in cutting them more, but they haven't actually DONE it, ever.

Click to expand...

Check the history of the Alaska state legislature eliminating the state income tax. The bill doing so was introduced by Andre Marrou(L) and he handled it in such a way that Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature were basically scared to vote against it.

And the answer to the question has already been stated but bears repeating: The Libertarian Party supports laissez-faire capitalism but corporations do not support laissez-faire capitalism. They support the current system which the Foundation for Economic Education termed 'economic royalism.'

If libs. were in charge and enforced their policies big business would be in the deep stuff! Where they got the gravy was when they were accorded the status of individuals. They acctually have no accountabillity since they can bankrupt with minimal loss to the holders. I find it interesting in how so many believe that if you invest you are guarenteed a profit! Sorry you make your choice and live with it!

Check the history of the Alaska state legislature eliminating the state income tax.

Click to expand...

True, but he was one of the few state level L's to serve. There are some on city and county levels as well.

IMO, the L party's problem with attracting more support is they have had somewhat of an indenity crisis for the past 3 years. The L party doesnt seem to realize that they mainly attract those on the right. Lets face it, at its core, Libertarianism is right wing. Those on the left want favors for their pet minorities, union thugery and giant government programs. Libertarians are sometimes called 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' but as a Libertarian I dont really believe that. We are more like 'fiscally conservative, and social issues shouldnt be regulated' as 'socially liberal' for most people seems to include a shopping list of things like affirmative action et all.

The big hangup for me on the L party and its fellow libertarian groups like Cato is immigration. I disagree wholeheartedly with them so strongly on the issue it is difficult for me to read their positions on the topic. They at times almost seem to be wearing blinders, and then resort to using leftist propaganda terms like 'comprehensive immigration reform' or its known to the rest of us, 'the amnesty we give every 20 years'. Sometimes, their glee for unregulated capitalism pushes them into the same camp as the globalists that want our borders to vanish and for a nation-state to form from the US Canada and Mexico, and perhaps later to include the Central American states. But yet, they oppose international law (which I agree with) and things like the UN and the International Criminal Court, so sovereignty is important, seemingly. Yet they dont see the contradiction.

corporations do not support laissez-faire capitalism. They support the current system which the Foundation for Economic Education termed 'economic royalism.'

Click to expand...

True with one big caveat.

Damn near every business in America that turns a profit is a "corporation." There are at least tens of thousands.

You are referring to maybe the 500 in the S&P.

"Big business" is not the same as "corporations." Libertarians should avoid sounding like silly college socialists.

IMO, the L party's problem with attracting more support is they have had somewhat of an indenity crisis for the past 3 years.

Click to expand...

You forgot about the significant chunk of people who left the LP when Badnarik expressed his sympathy for Al Qaeda in late 2001.

You forgot about the significant chunk of people who left the LP when Badnarik expressed his sympathy for Al Qaeda in late 2001.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I too believe he was a joke, esp when he demanded a tax-payer funded recount in Ohio during the 2004 elections - one he knew he wasnt going to win anyway.

It is too bad Harry Browne has passed away.

You forgot about the significant chunk of people who left the LP when Badnarik expressed his sympathy for Al Qaeda in late 2001.

Click to expand...

Badnarik calling for a recount in Ohio which he didn't have a chance in hell of winning, and essentially asking for public funds to do so wasn't too helpful either. And badnarik is good... up until the point where he starts talking about the conspiracy of the federal reserve and how they killed lincoln and kennedy. Even if its true, its not something that you should go on record of saying if you ever hope to win an election. If you think it actually is true, wait until elected then quietly go about researching it. Even though you might be gaining a few people, the majority of the populace probably isn't too comfortable voting for someone who takes conspiracy theories too seriously.

Because the money follows corruption

I miss Harry Browne. Got to meet him not long before he died. I sure miss him now.

Badnarik was a joke, but he was also the Presidential candidate. That makes the party a joke.

One more thing...

At the moment, the LP has the uncanny ability to appear to conservatives as the looney left and to liberals as the reactionary right. Not good, especially when there are potential allies out there and they're being chased off.

I'm not sure what to do about this. I wish I knew.

At the moment, the LP has the uncanny ability to appear to conservatives as the looney left and to liberals as the reactionary right. Not good, especially when there are potential allies out there and they're being chased off.

I'm not sure what to do about this. I wish I knew.

Click to expand...

Yes, I hit upon this point earlier. The L party needs to drop their immigration lunacy (they supposedly changed it, but I see zero indication of that from the comments of the board of directors). If they realized the types they want are the Goldwater conservatives of the Republican Party, and not the 911 truthers/tax protestors, theyd win more.

Post 911 we have lost so many members its unreal. We basically have zero support from Neil Bortz, who used to be one of our greatest champions.