Libertopia, according to David Koch

[Econoline]

David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.

Let’s take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

● “We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic
...Federal Election Commission.”
● “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
● “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including
...those which finance abortion services.”
● “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
● “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security
...system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
● “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being
...inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to
...the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
● “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
● “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
● “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
● “We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as
...minimum wage laws.”
● “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination
...of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation,
...and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
● “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
● “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
● “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
● “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
● “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the
...Department of Transportation.”
● “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization
...of the public roads and national highway system.”
● “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment
...such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
● “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
● “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
● “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans
...and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
● “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government
...programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such
...persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
● “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to
...industry, agriculture and households.”
● “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
● “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
● “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

... (source)

Okay now, let's have a show of hands....how many here feel that this sounds like a place they'd want to live?

[Lord Jim]

The Koch brothers have been a great boon for the Democrats. In order to raise money, you need bogeymen, (Ted Kennedy probably raised as much money for the GOP as he did for the Dems) and the Koch brothers, particularly because they are private guys who don't often speak out or defend themselves, are ideal bogeymen. Their lack of a high public profile enables the Dem spinmeisters to effectively create sinister, evil , James Bond Ubber Villain type fantasy personas for them. Some Democrats seem driven to the point of obsession with them. (I think some of them have convinced themselves that if it just weren't for the wealth of the Koch brothers, their ideas would be so wildly popular with the public that they'd pretty much win every election.)

Kochophobia has raised many millions for Democratic and liberal causes.

[rubato]

When you can't answer, change the subject.






yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

...very well done too! And thanks Econo, hands firmly down.

[Rick]

When you can't answer, change the subject.






yrs,
rubato

Whatcha gonna change it to?

[Lord Jim]

When you can't answer, change the subject.






yrs,
rubato

When you don't have anything intelligent to say, just type in something stupid...

It seems pretty clear to me that Econo's question was largely rhetorical; surely he didn't expect to find a bunch of people around here saying, "Yes sirree, that's a fine list. I agree with the whole thing, wouldn't change a word."

(I don't think even Dave would say that....)

My guess (and I think it's probably a pretty good guess) is that the primary purpose for posting the OP was to take a swing at one of the Koch brothers...

To me the question of why so many liberals are driven practically to apoplexy by the brothers Koch is more interesting then what a fringe party had in it's platform 34 years ago...

I have no idea whether this Koch still agrees with that entire platform, (or whether he even did when he was their Veep nominee; candidates frequently don't) nor do I view it as particularly important...

He is not running for anything, and unless he's only providing financial backing to Rand Paul, none of the candidates he's likely to support who have any chance of winning are likely to buy into the absolutist positions of that whole list either...

[dgs49]

Gee, I wonder if it would be remotely possible to find things in, say, George Soros' background that seem a little extreme? Not to mention Our Beloved President's.

That platform's actually pretty funny. There is nothing like the impossibility of winning that brings out the crackpot in a candidate.

[Econoline]

Yeah, why worry about the political views of those who control the political system, and the politicians?

[Rick]

Yeah just ask Ross Perot

[rubato]

That examples does not illustrate the point you appear to think it does. You should have a look at that campaign in more detail.

yrs,
rubato

[Rick]

I'm sure his inference was about money.

Now go back and read, money don't always win

[Econoline]

1. Yeah, "money don't always win"--apparently it wins *ONLY* 91% of the time. (Whew, what a relief, huh?)
2. The dynamics of presidential campaigns are different from the dynamics of congressional campaigns; the chart
...I posted dealt specifically with money in congressional politics.
3. Ross Perot ran for POTUS in 1992 and 1996 (as a 3rd-party candidate; that alone automatically put him at a HUGE ...disadvantage)
...3a. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
...3b. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)






P.S. “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” --Thomas Jefferson (1816)

[Rick]

Yeah TJ considered by many the 1st Libertarian.

As for winning candidates (econoline mainly) I kind a view them with the same perspective that I give the fire "triangle" (Fuel, Air, Heat) in this case the winning candidate has the most of the following:

Money, Support, Politition...take away anyone of these and you have a loser Money replaces fuel in this scenario

[Long Run]

What that graph doesn't prove is cause and effect. It is just as likely that being a winner attracts money. What has been shown is 1) incumbents win the vast majority of the time, 2) they have networks for raising $, and 3) donors want to support the winner for a variety of reasons. And successful challengers or winners of open seats can win with less $ as long as they have enough to get their message out. Watch some Senate and House races where the incumbent in a swing seat has more money but will lose because they are on the wrong side of an important issue (e.g., Iraq War in 2006 or the ACA in 2010 and 2014).

[Econoline]

What that graph doesn't prove is cause and effect. It is just as likely that being a winner attracts money. What has been shown is 1) incumbents win the vast majority of the time, 2) they have networks for raising $, and 3) donors want to support the winner for a variety of reasons.

Good points, LR. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point out that flaw in the graph.

"Just as likely", though? I suspect not...but that's just a hunch (and maybe my own political leanings showing through). But if spending more money were the effect rather than the cause of winning, donors wouldn't give so much, and incumbents wouldn't spend so much of their time fundraising, would they?

Oh, and to get back to the OP, why not report on the publicly professed ideals and principles that motivate the big donors? Can anyone (I'm looking at you, dgs) demonstrate that the political ideology and goals of David Koch and/or his brother have changed since that Libertarian presidential campaign?

[Rick]

1. Yeah, "money don't always win"--apparently it wins *ONLY* 91% of the time. (Whew, what a relief, huh?)

I'm kinda slow, I just noticed you were being a smart alack.

sorry

[rubato]

"Money wins 91% of the time".

What that does not say is that money cannot make the electorate like someone that is fundamentally odious to them. Meg Whitman ran for governor in California and was beaten badly even after spending a huge pile of her own money.

Ross Perot was a loose cannon (sorry you didn't bother to research that election.) given to insane conspiracy theories and he dropped OUT of the campaign for several months. The fact that he got a lot of votes is proof of the power of money, not the opposite. And in the end I don't think he spent more than the other candidates, one of them the sitting vice-president.

Really, you need to do better research.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

And in the end I don't think he spent more than the other candidates, one of them the sitting vice-president.

Really, you need to do better research.

LMAO!!!

Uhh, speaking of doing better research....

The United States presidential election of 1992 was the 52nd quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 3, 1992. There were three major candidates: Incumbent Republican President George H. W. Bush; Democratic Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, and independent Texas businessman Ross Perot.

You see now what happens rube, when a complete ignoramus attempts to be "condescending"?

Hilarity ensues....

“It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so”- Will Rogers

[Joe Guy]

rubato wrote: "What that does not say is that money cannot make the electorate like someone that is fundamentally odious to them. Meg Whitman ran for governor in California and was beaten badly even after spending a huge pile of her own money.

Ross Perot was a loose cannon (sorry you didn't bother to research that election.) given to insane conspiracy theories and he dropped OUT of the campaign for several months. The fact that he got a lot of votes is proof of the power of money, not the opposite. And in the end I don't think he spent more than the other candidates, one of them the sitting vice-president.

Really, you need to do better research."

You are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that money can't make people like a candidate and later you say that Perot's total votes are proof of the power of money.

Further, Perot still has the record for spending the most of his own money on a presidential campaign. Whitman spent more than Perot in 2010 and holds the record for spending by any type of candidate.

Really, you need to do better research.

[Econoline]

I got what rubato *MEANT* (despite the fact that he does need to do better research). Perot had so many things going AGAINST him in 1992 (anybody remember VP candidate Vice Admiral James "Who am I? Why am I here?" Stockdale, ret.) that the fact that he still got almost 19% of the vote (the most for a third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt!) instead of 1.9% or 0.19% could arguably be construed as proof of the power of money, not the opposite. (And the fact that he was running against an incumbent President only strengthens that argument.)