Today we'll recap some of the other less publicized but equally important races as the election nears. In the Indiana state representative race Dist. 71 incumbent Steve Stemler (D) faces Libertarian candidate Russell Brooksbank. Stemler has been a popular vote getter here locally and should win easily. The BatBlog feels until the Libertarian party eases their stances on government programs like Soc. Security, Medicare and Medicaid, they are facing an uphill battle to be legitimate and viable contenders in key races. Mr. Brooksbank has shown he has some good ideas and we appreciate his participation here on the BatBlog, but we feel the public's perception of Libertarians as anti everything government will kill his chances. Stemler wins big...
In the Clark Co. treasurer's race newcomer Nancy Mc Divitt (D) faces incumbent David Reinhardt. Ms Mc Divitt has run a low key race, so low key that the BatBlog isn't sure what her qualifications are. Reinhardt should and will win easily
*** This week the BatBlog looks at the other key local races... Clark Co. assessor, recorder and the judges races plus an election eve preview...Stay Tuned and Be Sure To Vote
Thanks HT, I will have to respectfully disagree. I believe that I have a very good chance of winning, but either way I am pleased with my efforts. I think the American people are starting to wake up and the more I can put the message of liberty in front of their faces the better in my opinion. So, I believe I may have already one. In the immortal words of Obi Wan Kenobi, The ideal of Liberty is becoming stronger than it's opponents can imagine.
ReplyDeleteI am thankful for the opportunity to at least try to set something straight. Libertarians are not anti everything government. That would be anarchism. We agree that government does have a role to play. That role, as stated in our founding documents, is to secure our rights. Both the Democrat and Republican parties have chosen to stray far from that role. Instead, they believe it is their job to secure their own brand of morality. Democrats want to tell us how to spend our money. Republicans want to tell us what we can do in our own bedrooms. Libertarians, on the other hand, when faced with a decision concerning legislation ask,"Does this secure people's rights or violate them?" Yes, we are for less government intrusion, but we are completely in favor of government stepping in to secure our rights. If you were free to do as you wish, as long as you were not violating someone else's rights, then how much more peaceful, happy and prosperous would you be? That is the message of the Libertarian Party. That is the message I will shout from the rooftops regardless the outcome of the election Nov 4th. Thank you for allowing me to participate. Mostly though, thank everyone else for taking the time to listen. My hope is that you will break free from the chains of the two party paradigm and turn your face towards the warm glow of Liberty once more.
Notice how he ignores the social security? He can't talk about that, all he can campaign on is you should hate the other two parties. That's what happens when you run as an extremist. Oh well, as I've said before, there will be a winner and a LOSER.
ReplyDeleteI'm not ignoring social security. If you want to know then ask. One of my goals is to educate the voters so that they may make an informed decision no matter which way they decide.
ReplyDeleteSo, to start off, I will say that I wholeheartedly support individuals and communities doing whatever they can to help those less fortunate. As a Christian I believe I am my brother's keeper. I also do not believe in forcing people to give at gunpoint, and I don't think Jesus does either. I believe that this nation is the most generous nation in the history of the world. I believe that being rugged individuals does not conflict with our drive to help those in need. This is evidenced by the fact that these programs exist. I believe the intention was good, but the execution was poor.
Anytime you try to legislate morality you end up having the opposite effect. These programs have not caused us to treat the poor in this country better. They've actually done harm to the poor and to the American soul. We have been conditioned into the paradigm of "there's a program for that". Why should I buy that guy a cheeseburger? There's a program for that. So this war on poverty has ended up creating more poverty. Like I said, we are a generous people sending private donations in the trillions overseas every year. Yet there are starving children in Appalachia. Why? Because there's a program for that.
Okay Russ, so what's your solution? I would phase out these programs slowly. People who have paid into the system all their lives should not be cut off. We should stop collecting money now and cap benefits. The benefits should decrease as people get younger until it hits zero. For instance, let's say we cap the benefit at $900/month for someone age 65 now. Then we would cap it at $898 for those who are 64 now. It would drop until it was capped at $0 for those who are 18 now. This will accomplish 2 things. First, it will put the responsibility for our lives back into our laps. Second, it will get us back into the habit of voluntarily helping one another.
People like to use the Great Depression as proof that government involvement is necessary. I believe they are wrong. As evidence I would like to ask for proof of the mass graves from starvation before the government stepped in. You will not find any. What you will find is evidence of people helping people. There are plenty of pictures of soup lines that were manned and paid for by regular citizens. That is what we lost and what we need to regain.
I propose that government does whatever it can to facilitate or get out of the way of the creation of private non profit foundations that are funded solely by voluntary contributions. These foundations would be set up to help those less fortunate with things like food, shelter, healthcare and education. Being funded voluntarily would go a long way towards restoring the American soul. Plus, I believe it will add more to the coffers for folks in this country. That's where we should be spending it first, don't you agree?
You see, we don't want to throw away the safety net. We just want to change who has a hold of it. The trick to a good safety net is for it to be stretched out until moment of impact. Then the net is supposed to decelerate the person being caught. This can only be achieved by the persons holding it having a firm grip and allowing the net to bend without breaking. People who want to save someone from hitting the ground will hold onto that net for dear life. Someone who is forced to hold it will hold it loosely and only to the point that they are inconvenienced. I want our net to be strong.
I don't know if I've affected your vote or not, but I at least hope you now understand this Libertarians position well enough to believe the vote you cast will be an informed one.
Thanks again,
Russell Brooksbank, extremist
Good job, Vice. Great post.
ReplyDeleteMr. Brooksbank good luck in your race and thanks for sharing your views.
ReplyDeleteThe Libertarians certainly have some valid and good ideas, I think all of us to some degree would like to see smaller and less intrusion by government in our daily lives.
But with that being said, I stand by my statement that until Libertarians come down from their stance on certain government programs they will never be viable contenders on a major level.
Yes in a perfect world everyone would be self sufficient, have the will power and the resources to save for old age or the possibilities of death or disability.
Unfortunately it is not a perfect world, it is a very flawed world where even those with the resources and self control to financially be self sufficient can't overcome the ravages of age and the cost of medical care on their right to a decent quality of life. Plus somehow take care of those less fortunate as well.
While Soc. Sec., medicare/medicaid and some other programs are not perfect they have helped millions upon millions achieve that somewhat good quality of life and in a lot cases made it possible to retain their dignity and live.
Your reference to depression times just doesn't hold water because there are thousands times more people in the world and this country today compared to then. With different needs and problems that didn't even exist back then. I'm sorry but the idea that the private sector can take care of everyone through charity or whatever is delusional.
On the same hand I believe in your right to speak your message and get out the Libertarian ideology...
and again Good Luck in your race against Mr. Stemler
Once again HT, I do thank you for allowing me to speak on your forum. I don't want it to seem like I'm trying to pick a fight here. I agree that the Libertarian Party does have perception issues that need to be combated. I don't believe that the party needs to change it's stance though. I believe the party needs to do a better job of explaining it's stance and educating people why it is the better stance than that of the other parties.
ReplyDeleteThe need to take care of those less fortunate than us has been around for a very long time. Jesus himself addressed this when he said that,"The poor you will have with you always." I do not think that we'll get very many people to agree that the poor among us should just "die and decrease the surplus population" as Mr. Scrooge puts it (unless we talk to those responsible for the Georgia Guidestones).
We do not differ in recognizing the need. We do not differ in our desire to do something about the need. We differ in our methods of dealing with the need. I favor a method that is non violent and actually addresses the problem.
You are right when you say that we do not live in a perfect world. That is why we need to be our brothers keepers. However, let me ask you this; If a store were offering free bread and you refused to go down and get a loaf is it fair to demand that I give you half of mine later? I don't think it is. Is it right that I share? Yes, but I should not be forced to do so.
I have a lot more faith in people than you do I guess. If the government stopped forcing you to plan for retirement or old age would you stop? I'm not. If the government stopped forcing you to help the needy would you? I'm not, as a matter of fact I will do more than what I already do because I will have more of my resources to do so.
I agree that SS, medicare and medicaid have done great things. I just believe we can do so much better through voluntary action instead of forced action. The private sector is already taking care of everyone. Where do you think the public sector gets it's money? It's all private sector money. Not only are we taking care of our own with private sector money we are taking care of the world. So, no, it's not delusional to think that we can take care of those less fortunate with strictly voluntary donations.
I use the great depression because that is the go to example people use to reason using force to help the poor. Yes, there are more people now, but there are more people now. More people needing assistance and more people available to provide that assistance. The need for food, shelter and healthcare has not changed. We've provided it in the past without the force of government and we can do it again.
In closing, I think it is awesome that we live in a country where we can share a goal but not the path to attain it and together work to forge a new path. I am in favor of discussion and compromise. I feel it is the only right way to do it. Thanks again for tolerating me and my ideas.
Russell
ReplyDeleteWe'll just have to agree to disagree on some government programs. And as always I respect your right to spread your thoughts and ideas and wish there were more politicians like you and Rick Stephenson willing to come on forums like this and have the courage to answer tough questions.
Keep working my friend like I said Libertarians have some good ideas that need to be heard
I'd prefer to agree to continue working towards a solution we can all live with. Right now, I'll take that you've called me friend. That's an excellent starting point. Stay vigilant my friend.
ReplyDelete