You know. If you were in the green party. You might even have a point.

BUT YOU"RE A LIBERTARIAN.

That's how a minarchy is supposed to work. Private funding and all that. Now granted it's for a presidential position you feel has entirely too much power.

But groups of powerful indaviduals controlling the system? That's what Libertainism is all about.

15% seems about right. Only serious candidates need be involved. The purpose of debates is not to introduce the public to fringe ideologies, but to help us determine which of the serious candidates would serve this country best. Having the Green party or the Communist party candidate would just muddy the debates and make it that much more difficult to see the differences between the real candidates.

The fringe parties should put on their own debate and invite the cable networks to cover it. They could get Jerry Springer to MC.

I am questioning your grasp of the English language, since I specifically stated "or vying to become government officials." You might consider enrolling in a remedial English course so you can keep up.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the Commission on Presidential Debates is a de facto scam conceived and run by Democrats and Republicans and is limiting free speech and free choice concerning public elections.


I know you don't, because the conflict of interest destroys your argument.

If you believe that allowing all candidates the opportunity to exercise their right of free speech in public and specify their positions to the American people is totalitarianism, then there's no point discussing anything with you.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

The point stands for any third party.

No, that's no how a libertarian system would work. Libertarians wouldn't attempt to limit free speech concerning elections in any way, shape or form. No private group should have any right to do so. A private entity cannot use any form of coercion, fraud or force to prevent access to government officials.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

Well, however you want to mix it that's what they're doing. But they aren't doing anything that Libertarians aren't allowed to do. No guns. No bill passed regulating it.

It's just that the Democrat and Republican parties, which are essentially private organizations, decided they'd run their debates the way they like them, they refuse to debate on others terms, and the news stations choose to run their debates for the ratings. No coercion. Just contracts and freely entered into arrangements.

So is absolutely nothing in there that the Democrat or Republican parties couldn't choose to freely do in tomorrow we were magically under a libertarian system.

You'd think you'd appreciate this fine example of Libertarian principles in action instead of the government stepping in and forcing them to include other candidates.

Agreed.
If they're good enough for the ballot, they're good enough for the debate.

And on another note it's also BS that presidential elections make it such a pain to get on every state's ballot. It's a national election!

__________________
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

-George Carlin

Again, the parties aren't really private, SINCE THEY RUN AND CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT. They are de facto public as a result. I don't know why you guys want to keep spouting this nonsensical mantra that even Stevie Wonder could see through.

There's plenty they couldn't do. See my earlier post on the laws passed limiting third party ballot access, etc. All of those laws are anti-libertarian.

Your problem is you don't understand libertarianism. The guns are being used by your side, to keep libertarians out.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

Absolutely, though I don't like your chances. I still hope that the minors will put aside their differences and use what combined clout they have to effect change by urging their supporters to vote regarding democratic issues, like the debates, that they can dredge out of the main two. Prefferential voting too- seems like things they could agree on.

Green myself btw.

They are private parties that run and control the government. Yes. So what? You think if we switched to minarchy tomorrow they'd decide not to run the government? Private instituations that run everything through their wealth and non-coercive influence is how most people imagine a minarchy or anarcho-capitalist society functioning in reality.

Well, except in an anarcho-capitalist system they could use privately owned police agencies to throw a little real coercion in there.

I'd believe there's something in there that's anti-libertarian. But that's not what we're talking about in this thread. We're talking about the debat issue.


Now I don't know the background of that story.

But it sure seems like what happened was the candidates decided to tresspass on privately held property.

So the difference is that in a libertarian system the owners of the property could shoot to kill.

Straw Man. I support the Constitution my friend, and federal law enforcement is not private.


First of all, if the other anti-libertarian legislation didn't exist, we would be meeting the unfair 15% requirement - which was only established after Perot made the Democrat and Republican candidates look like fools in the debates. There is a clear concerted effort to prevent third party candidates from accessing the debates. If you do not acknowledge the very clear conflict of interest in the matter, then you're simply not being honest. Please stop trying to deceive the good people of this forum.


People can shoot to kill to defend their property now. The problem is, this was a public debate, between public officials, held on public time, for those running for public office. Private entities have no right to use force to limit the free speech of others. If libertarian candidates are so unappealing in your opinion, then why do you fear them being able to be in a debate? If you will so easily defeat them, then why not let them proclaim what they stand for?

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.