Ron Getty - - - OK!

Discussion
1

Hi, Michael,

I understand that these people will run on the Libertarian ticket and they should. I think they can do a lot of teaching of Libertarian principles(If they do it in the right way.) in a national debate forum - - - that's good. I don't think either of us would bet our fortunes that either of them will actually become our next president as much as we may want this to happen.

So, back to reality. What candidates, "that are on the national scene who might actually be elected", should we push and who should we try to stop as being most undesirable? Do you think Rudy Guiliani or Hillary Clinton would be more sympathetic to Libertarian causes while we wait for the nation to understand what it means to be a Libertarian? Or, do you think it matters? Others?

Best wishes,

Bob Parkhurst

From:

2

Dear Robert;

Guiliani or Clinton or McCain being sympathetic to Libertarian causes is no way. They would burn in the deepest darkest depths of Hell rather than espouse any Libertarian cause. They don't care because they don't have to care.

By the way I almost forgot to include in my Libertarian President what to do's: selling off all the national parks to private parties and getting the US Federal version of San Francisco's Wreck the Parks out of the Wreck the Parks business completely.

All other government owned land would be sold to the highest bidder to do with what they wanted when they wanted.

Then I would sell off all TV and Radio stations licenses to the highest bidders and get the FCC out of the censorship business. If the stations complain that the government was selling to them what they owned - tough - put up or shut up.

By the way I would take all the money raised to continue to pay current recipients of Social Security - Medicare and cut off any new people then repeal the social security and medicare tax. Any money left over would go to reduce the national debt.

Tah Dah! The on the 14th Day he rested.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

3

Robert,

  I take it you'd back someone that you estimated to have a one-in-ten chance, but not someone you estimated to have a one-in-a-thousand chance. I think it's just a matter of degree. At what point do you stop supporting the best candidate and start taking your cues from the media and the opinion polls, and why?

  One of the arguments against the morality of stealing, say, a candy bar from Safeway, is that while such a small item is negligible to a big company like Safeway's bottom line, if everybody did it, it would have a significant negative effect, and therefore to do it is setting a bad example or precedent. Do you see any harm in the precedent, or example, of voting for a candidate other than the person you consider best? What would happen if everyone did this? Or we could turn it around and ask, what would happen if everyone did vote for the candidate they considered best? Would the political landscape look any different?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Hi, Michael,

I understand that these people will run on the Libertarian ticket and they should. I think they can do a lot of teaching of Libertarian principles(If they do it in the right way.) in a national debate forum - - - that's good. I don't think either of us would bet our fortunes that either of them will actually become our next president as much as we may want this to happen.

So, back to reality. What candidates, "that are on the national scene who might actually be elected", should we push and who should we try to stop as being most undesirable? Do you think Rudy Guiliani or Hillary Clinton would be more sympathetic to Libertarian causes while we wait for the nation to understand what it means to be a Libertarian? Or, do you think it matters? Others?

Best wishes,

Bob Parkhurst

From:
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/25/2006 11:40:48 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Ron Getty - - - OK!

Bob,

As far as I can tell, Ruwart and Badnarik are the most likely to run.

Best, Michael

From: Robert Parkhurst
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Ron Getty - - - OK!

Dear Michael,
You have suggested two possible candidates: Mary Ruwart and Michael
Badnarik. I recall the names but I think they are not nationally well known
figures that are really "possible" for the next election. What percent of
the popular vote have they gotten in previous elections? Reallity forces
us to look more at national figures at least for the near future. While
both of us may like to see the country move in a more Libertarian
direction, I think we can both agree that the country may not be ready for
such a move for several years. Do you have a more "possible (likely)"
candidate?
Best wishes,
Bob Parkhurst

> [Original Message]
> From: <dredelstein@threeminutetherapy.com>
> To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 5/22/2006 12:59:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Ron Getty - - - OK!
>
> Bob,
>
> You asked:
> > Do you know of a possible candidate to replace him that would
> > do a better job in this area, that is, spend less or would veto such
> > legislation? Who?
>
> I know two possible candidates: Mary Ruwart and Michael Badnarik.
>
> However, the real issue is what Bush has done, as Ron implies, is
> wrong, vicious, and evil. Especially where Ron enumerates: "and so and
> so on and so on." Otherwise, Bush is great.
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Robert Parkhurst
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:54 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Ron Getty - - - OK!
>
> Dear Robert;
>
> Put those questions to the general LPSF discuss at yahoo groups.
> You'll get all the replies you want.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> Well - - - maybe I used the wrong word - - - perhaps I should have
> said that I get upset because I see the world as it is not as I would
> like it to be. I suggested that, "I frankly don't hate George Bush
> although I find some of his administration's policies that I do not
> agree with. You seem to have even more problem with him. Perhaps if
> you listed about five of those that you have the most problem with, it
> would help me to understand your point." Well, I see you have given
> me eight instead of five so I can see you are not short of complaints.
>
> I'm going to discuss them one by one so I can understand them better.
> I may be a bit of a "Devil's Advocate" just to add to the discussion
> since I have my own complaints about Bush's policies that are not
> necessarily the same as yours. "Never a veto of any spending program
> and No cuts in government spending" are really the same. Do you know
> of a possible candidate to replace him that would do a better job in
> this area, that is, spend less or would veto such legislation? Who?
>
> "no cuts in taxes" I thought a lot of people were complaining that he
> cut taxes for his rich friends. Have I been hearing the wrong
> propaganda?
>
> "no cuts in government bureaucracy" Again do you know of a possible
> candidate to replace him that would do a better job in this area, that
> is, decrease the size of government and give us less bureaucracy? If
> so, who?
>
> "lies about Iraq to get us involved in Iraq war" I have been hearing
> this now for some time but we both know that Clinton, Gore, Kerry and
> even Tony Blair thought Iraq had WMD. I don't like to say that Bush
> or anyone knew this was false without evidence. Do you have this
> evidence? It seems well established now that he seems to have had a
> policy of support for suicide bombers and that he had gassed his own
> people (Kurds). I do think he might have been trying to bluff the
> world into thinking he was stronger than he was. Bush's war seems to
> have bluffed Libya into giving up their nuclear weapons - - - not such
> a bad result.
>
> "using the Patriot Act to ignore civil liberties and various
> Constitutional laws" I think I can agree with this although congress
> and the courts were complacent in this. Can you be more specific
> about the parts that you especially object to?
>
> "Completely inept administration witness the Katrina - New Orleans -
> FEMA debacle." I thought that the Libertarian Party was against the
> federal government helping disaster victims. I thought the LP would
> want this handled at the lowest level of government and even better,
> with private charity. There was a lot of private charity that was
> ignored by local government both city and state wasn't there? I
> remember trains not being used and buses that were just left sitting.
>
> "Creation of more government bureaucracy through Patriot Act and so
> and so on and so on" This is again a case where I wonder if you know
> of a major presidential candidate that will do a better job? I also
> wonder if you know a better way to keep things like 9/11 from
> happening again? I have some ideas but the Libertarian Party may have
> this all figured out. As far as the," so on and so on" is concerned,
> you may be looking for things you don't like. Can you think of
> anything that you like about Bush?
>
> Most sincerely yours and best wishes - - -
>
> Bob Parkhurst
>
> From: Ron Getty
> To: rmparkhurst@...
> Sent: 5/21/2006 9:32:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Your Quiz Score Libertarian
>
> Dear Robert;
>
> I suggested the psychological problems after you mentioned in a
> previous post your were feeling depressed you said:.
>
> I find that it is easy to get depressed these days.
> It is too easy to get so frustrated that one feels that if something
> is not perfect it must be destroyed. Sometimes I feel that way myself
> and try to fight against that idea. That is just not the way life is
> and we sometimes have to support the best choices rather than only
> perfect ones.
>
> This generated some concerns on your behalf. Setting that aside the
> problems with Bush:
>
> Never a veto of any spending program
>
> No cuts in government spending
>
> no cuts in taxes
>
> no cuts in government bureacracy
>
> lies about Iraq to get us involved in Iraq war
>
> using the Patriot Act to ignore civil liberties and various
> Constitutional laws
>
> Completely inept administration witness the Katrina - New Orleans -
> FEMA debacle.
>
> Creation of more government bureacracy through Patriot Act
>
> and so and so on and so on
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Robert Parkhurst <rmparkhurst@...> wrote:
> Hi, Ron - - -
> If we both score about the same on the LP test, I guess that should
> mean that we want a similar world. I suggested that I was concerned
> about the world I live in and I think you suggested that I may have
> serious psycological problems. I suggested that we have some
> communication problems. I frankly don't hate George Bush although I
> find some of his administration's policies that I do not agree with.
> You seem to have even more problem with him. Perhaps if you listed
> about five of those that you have the most problem with, it would help
> me to understand your point.
> Bob Parkhurst
>
> From: Ron Getty
> To: rmparkhurst@...
> Sent: 5/20/2006 8:48:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Your Quiz Score Libertarian
>
> Dear Robert;
>
> I scored Libertarian - of course.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Robert Parkhurst <rmparkhurst@...> wrote:
> Ron,
> I took your political quiz (attached) before I read the other websites
> but I still feel we have some problem of communication since you think
> I might be nuts. How did you do on the test?
> Bob
>
> Robert Parkhurst
> rmparkhurst@...
>
> SPONSORED LINKS U s government grant U s government student loan
> California politics
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

4

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

5

I happened to be in Italy last month for their national elections, and
was fascinated by the process as it is done in Europe. Italy has more
than 75 political parties and they are all on the ballot together.
Italian voters do not vote for specific candidates, they vote for the
party that they prefer. The parties cover a remarkably broad spectrum
of viewpoints. There is a Marijuana Legalization Party, a "Green
Greens" party, a dozen or more variations on communist and socialist
parties, two competing parties representing "pensioners" (e.g., senior
citizens who live on the retirement pensions), a party that advocates
seceding from the EU and going back to using the Italian Lira as the
national currency (the No Euro Movement) and one called "The Rose in the
Fist." Benito Mussolini's granddaughter is still leading what is left
of the Italian Fascist party. There is no direct equivalent to a
"Libertarian Party" but I suspect a party named "Autonomy Liberty
Democracy" may come close, or perhaps another one named the "Movement
for Autonomy" might be another. I don't know enough about either of them
to be sure.

As you suspect, these parties have very little power individually, but
in order to form a government, they align themselves in loose
coalitions, and it is these coalitions that wield the most power. Italy
uses a proportional representation system, so these coaltions work
together in the two houses of Parliament to elect the Prime Minister and
the President. These two houses are called the Union and the House of
Freedoms. Of course, they don't always work so well together, which is
why Italy's governments tend to collapse frequently when votes of no
confidence can suddenly abolish the whole structure in an afternoon.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, and is also why the government
assembled by the recently defeated Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
lasted longer than any previous government since the fall of the
Fascists near the end of WWII. Berlusconi is one of the wealthiest men
in all Europe, yet he lost his office because he promised (not once, but
twice) to reduce taxes, but never did. The new Prime Minister, Romano
Prodi, may not be much better (he was previously Prime Minister from
1996 to 1998, leading a center-left coaltion), but it will be
interesting to see if he can last longer than two years in the office
this time.

Terry Floyd

6

Derek,

  The 51% majority would not be setting policy. The candidates they elected -- who even *they* saw as flawed -- would be setting policy. (This is assuming that one of the compromise candidates splitting the 51% prevailed over all the candidates faithfully representing their constituencies splitting the 49%, of course.)

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Starchild:

Conversely, what if 51% of people voted for their compromise choice but the other 49% of true believers voted for their perfect > candidates?

I think you'd see several very small political parties composed of strong ideologues and great debaters, but with very little political power. Meanwhile the 51% would be setting policy.

Robert,

    I take it you&#39;d back someone that you estimated to have a one\-in\-ten

chance, but not someone you estimated to have a one-in-a-thousand
chance. I think it's just a matter of degree. At what point do you stop
supporting the best candidate and start taking your cues from the media
and the opinion polls, and why?

    One of the arguments against the morality of stealing, say, a candy

bar from Safeway, is that while such a small item is negligible to a
big company like Safeway's bottom line, if everybody did it, it would
have a significant negative effect, and therefore to do it is setting a
bad example or precedent. Do you see any harm in the precedent, or
example, of voting for a candidate other than the person you consider
best? What would happen if everyone did this? Or we could turn it
around and ask, what would happen if everyone did vote for the
candidate they considered best? Would the political landscape look any
different?

Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

> Hi, Michael,
>
> I understand that these people will run on the Libertarian ticket and
> they should. I think they can do a lot of teaching of Libertarian
> principles(If they do it in the right way.)in a national debate forum
> - - - that's good. I don't think either of us would bet our fortunes
> that either of them will actually become our next president as much as
> we may want this to happen.
>
> So, back to reality. What candidates, "that are on the national scene
> who might actually be elected", should we push and who should we try
> to stop as being most undesirable? Do you think Rudy Guiliani or
> Hillary Clinton would be more sympathetic to Libertarian causes while
> we wait for the nation to understand what it means to be a
> Libertarian? Or, do you think it matters? Others?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bob Parkhurst
>
> From:
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 5/25/2006 11:40:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Ron Getty - - - OK!
>
> Bob,
>
> As far as I can tell, Ruwart and Badnarik are the most likely to run.
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Robert Parkhurst
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Ron Getty - - - OK!
>
> Dear Michael,
> You have suggested two possible candidates: Mary Ruwart and Michael
> Badnarik. I recall the names but I think they are not nationally well
> known
> figures that are really "possible" for the next election. What percent
> of
> the popular vote have they gotten in previous elections? Reallity
> forces
> us to look more at national figures at least for the near future.
> While
> both of us may like to see the country move in a more Libertarian
> direction, I think we can both agree that the country may not be ready
> for
> such a move for several years. Do you have a more "possible (likely)"
> candidate?
> Best wishes,
> Bob Parkhurst
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: < dredelstein@...>
> > To: <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: 5/22/2006 12:59:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Ron Getty - - - OK!
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > You asked:
> > > Do you know of a possible candidate to replace him that would
> > > do a better job in this area, that is, spend less or would veto
> such
> > > legislation? Who?
> >
> > I know two possible candidates: Mary Ruwart and Michael Badnarik.
> >
> > However, the real issue is what Bush has done, as Ron implies, is
> > wrong, vicious, and evil. Especially where Ron enumerates: "and so
> and
> > so on and so on." Otherwise, Bush is great.
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> > From: Robert Parkhurst
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:54 PM
> > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Ron Getty - - - OK!
> >
> > Dear Robert;
> >
> > Put those questions to the general LPSF discuss at yahoo groups.
> > You'll get all the replies you want.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Robert Parkhurst <rmparkhurst@...> wrote:
> > Dear Ron,
> >
> > Well - - - maybe I used the wrong word - - - perhaps I should have
> > said that I get upset because I see the world as it is not as I would
> > like it to be. I suggested that, "I frankly don't hate George Bush
> > although I find some of his administration's policies that I do not
> > agree with. You seem to have even more problem with him. Perhaps if
> > you listed about five of those that you have the most problem with,
> it
> > would help me to understand your point." Well, I see you have given
> > me eight instead of five so I can see you are not short of
> complaints.
> >
> > I'm going to discuss them one by one so I can understand them better.
> > I may be a bit of a "Devil's Advocate" just to add to the discussion
> > since I have my own complaints about Bush's policies that are not
> > necessarily the same as yours. "Never a veto of any spending program
> > and No cuts in government spending" are really the same. Do you know
> > of a possible candidate to replace him that would do a better job in
> > this area, that is, spend less or would veto such legislation? Who?
> >
> > "no cuts in taxes" I thought a lot of people were complaining that he
> > cut taxes for his rich friends. Have I been hearing the wrong
> > propaganda?
> >
> > "no cuts in government bureaucracy" Again do you know of a possible
> > candidate to replace him that would do a better job in this area,
> that
> > is, decrease the size of government and give us less bureaucracy? If
> > so, who?
> >
> > "lies about Iraq to get us involved in Iraq war" I have been hearing
> > this now for some time but we both know that Clinton, Gore, Kerry and
> > even Tony Blair thought Iraq had WMD. I don't like to say that Bush
> > or anyone knew this was false without evidence. Do you have this
> > evidence? It seems well established now that he seems to have had a
> > policy of support for suicide bombers and that he had gassed his own
> > people (Kurds). I do think he might have been trying to bluff the
> > world into thinking he was stronger than he was. Bush's war seems to
> > have bluffed Libya into giving up their nuclear weapons - - - not
> such
> > a bad result.
> >
> > "using the Patriot Act to ignore civil liberties and various
> > Constitutional laws" I think I can agree with this although congress
> > and the courts were complacent in this. Can you be more specific
> > about the parts that you especially object to?
> >
> > "Completely inept administration witness the Katrina - New Orleans -
> > FEMA debacle." I thought that the Libertarian Party was against the
> > federal government helping disaster victims. I thought the LP would
> > want this handled at the lowest level of government and even better,
> > with private charity. There was a lot of private charity that was
> > ignored by local government both city and state wasn't there? I
> > remember trains not being used and buses that were just left sitting.
> >
> > "Creation of more government bureaucracy through Patriot Act and so
> > and so on and so on" This is again a case where I wonder if you know
> > of a major presidential candidate that will do a better job? I also
> > wonder if you know a better way to keep things like 9/11 from
> > happening again? I have some ideas but the Libertarian Party may
> have
> > this all figured out. As far as the," so on and so on" is concerned,
> > you may be looking for things you don't like. Can you think of
> > anything that you like about Bush?
> >
> > Most sincerely yours and best wishes - - -
> >
> > Bob Parkhurst
> >
> > From: Ron Getty
> > To: rmparkhurst@...
> > Sent: 5/21/2006 9:32:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Your Quiz Score Libertarian
> >
> > Dear Robert;
> >
> > I suggested the psychological problems after you mentioned in a
> > previous post your were feeling depressed you said:.
> >
> > I find that it is easy to get depressed these days.
> > It is too easy to get so frustrated that one feels that if something
> > is not perfect it must be destroyed. Sometimes I feel that way
> myself
> > and try to fight against that idea. That is just not the way life is
> > and we sometimes have to support the best choices rather than only
> > perfect ones.
> >
> > This generated some concerns on your behalf. Setting that aside the
> > problems with Bush:
> >
> > Never a veto of any spending program
> >
> > No cuts in government spending
> >
> > no cuts in taxes
> >
> > no cuts in government bureacracy
> >
> > lies about Iraq to get us involved in Iraq war
> >
> > using the Patriot Act to ignore civil liberties and various
> > Constitutional laws
> >
> > Completely inept administration witness the Katrina - New Orleans -
> > FEMA debacle.
> >
> > Creation of more government bureacracy through Patriot Act
> >
> > and so and so on and so on
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Hi, Ron - - -
> > If we both score about the same on the LP test, I guess that should
> > mean that we want a similar world. I suggested that I was concerned
> > about the world I live in and I think you suggested that I may have
> > serious psycological problems. I suggested that we have some
> > communication problems. I frankly don't hate George Bush although I
> > find some of his administration's policies that I do not agree with.
> > You seem to have even more problem with him. Perhaps if you listed
> > about five of those that you have the most problem with, it would
> help
> > me to understand your point.
> > Bob Parkhurst
> >
> > From: Ron Getty
> > To: rmparkhurst@...
> > Sent: 5/20/2006 8:48:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: Your Quiz Score Libertarian
> >
> > Dear Robert;
> >
> > I scored Libertarian - of course.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Robert Parkhurst < rmparkhurst@...> wrote:
> > Ron,
> > I took your political quiz (attached) before I read the other
> websites
> > but I still feel we have some problem of communication since you
> think
> > I might be nuts. How did you do on the test?
> > Bob
> >
> > Robert Parkhurst
> > rmparkhurst@earthlink.net
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS U s government grant U s government student loan
> > California politics
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
<image.tiff>
>

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>