Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian candidate on Larry King Live
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:05:26 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.122121.28781@linus.mitre.org>, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
> Each election I take a look at what Libertarians say about libertarians.
> Usually this takes the form of reviewing the party platform and perusing
> their press releases, but monday the Libertarian Party candidate for
> President was on Larry King Live.

	Ahhh, our weak spot! :)

> After giving a discussion on anti-quota legislation and such, using attendance
> on Larry's show and access to restraunts as examples, he told a caller that
> the party was looking into legal methods to force the presidential debate
> committees to have him attend the debates.  Apparently the minor detail that
> he would be using exactly the same US legal system for exactly the same reason
> (to force someone to accept someone that they did not invite) didn't bother
> him in the slightest. (and as for the argument that this is just working with
> the system that exists, when precisely that was suggested by a caller he said
> that would be like expecting jews to work with the nazis.  Apparently he
> doesn't even SEE that is what he is doing.)

	This is the major reason why I support the LP in general, but not
certain candidates who are just as opportunist as any Demopublican.  Marrou is
certainly not the best that the LP has to offer, but he actually held office,
and that seems to count for more than anything else in the LP right now.
	I was also bothered by the way the LP committee lock-stepped in behind
Marrou on his personal problems.  (Mainly, an ex-wife who says he owes her $).
	When that became public, there was a move to remove him from the
ticket.  The only reason no one outside the party hears about it is because the
press ignores the LP for the most part.
	Suffice it to say that that issue alone would kill Marrou.
	However, I haven't seen a predispostion by Marrou for lawsuits....

>... 
> After giving Larry an extensive review of the value of a zero federal tax rate,
> he said that HE would have immediately called in the (mystically funded?)
> federal military troops for disaster relier (when directly asked about
> Hurricane Andrew)

	Certainly the government does not *require* revenue from personal
income taxes.  We seem to have done quite well for the first 150 years without
them.  However, once you give government a funding source, you are unlikely to
ever get it back.
	Note how many people seem to think that we are "morally obligated" to
help fund the government through income taxes, even though the founding fathers
didn't seem to think so. :)
	And without income taxes, the government would have the same revenues
they did in...1987.  Not too scary, eh?

> He made extensive claims that the only political difference between HIS
> candidacy and that of Perot was that Perot had money.  I must have missed
> when the petitions got him personally on the presidential ballot on all 50
> states.

	Money, media exposure, and *cough* realistic goals. :)  Lib's tend to
bite off more than they can chew in four years.  A long journey starts will a
single step, but the LP keeps trying to do it in one giant leap.  (With all the
attendent images "giant leap" might bring to mind.)
	But Marrou seems to understand this, and has toned down the all or
nothing rhetoric frequently heard from some corners of the LP.

> If this is an example of their best, it is no wonder that after decades the
> libertarian party is still a joke.  

	Mmmmm.  Okay, I'd say "not taken as seriously as the incumbent party". 
However, some Libs have made jokes of themselves and the party by being
foolish.  Until the LP gets a nationwide organization for the explicit purpose
of getting Libs voted into local office, they will suffer from a lack of
experience and media exposure.  The Libs in NH help, but the media ignores them
and the rest of the NH legislature refused to refer to them as Libertarians.:\ 
Who ya gonna call?

> In my opinion, the disconnect from
> the facts (included those presented by the candidate himself to support his
> posturing) and the internal inconsistencies exhibited indicates that the
> libertarian party would do for government what creationism does for science.
> And in almost the same way.

	It wouldn't be that bad :).  The LP is still having internal conflicts
between the anarchists and minarchists and otherarchists.  IMO, the LP should
boot the anarchists, seriously admonish the minarchists, and become a party of
"less government".  (As opposed to "no government" or "barely-there
government".)  Certainly I think our government would do just fine without a
lot of the bureaucracy that has built up this century.
	But them I'm only one of them.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!