Can a Libertarian win over the working class?

[coloradoatheist]

The approval rating of Congress is normally around 30% and the issue is that we have confirmation bias that I do see a lot of people who identify with some of the issuesin both parties but also have strong favor of some of the Libertarian policies. Half the eligible population votes because they are fed up with the parties. Some will be further left, some further right.

 

[Bronzeage]

"Rising tide" is a metaphor similar to "trickle down." As for fairness, that's another word which arouses suspicion in most working class people.

Is this a pointless inquiry? Does Libertaranism have no appeal for working poor people? If so, it seems to be a hopeless cause.

You don't think all people, including the relatively poor, are better off in an economy with a higher GDP per capita?

Maybe you need to try being middle income in Bangladesh or Djibouti.

Of everyone is better off in an economy with a higher GDP. Is that your campaign speech?

My father had standard summary for politicians who spoke a lot, but didn't say anything. Such a man was "Against sin and for motherhood."

To say, "A rising tide raises all boats," sounds great if you own a boat. Are you going to write off the working poor, or is there some substance in Libertarianism that will make their life better, something more than, water for the tide to come in?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The approval rating of Congress is normally around 30% and the issue is that we have confirmation bias that I do see a lot of people who identify with some of the issuesin both parties but also have strong favor of some of the Libertarian policies. Half the eligible population votes because they are fed up with the parties. Some will be further left, some further right.

There is no such thing as a Libertarian Policy, unless you consider laissez faire and buyer beware to be policies.

 

[ksen]

- The Republicans and Democrats are so busy squabbling over whose lives matter, hate cakes, and bathroom rights for Caitlyn Jenner that they have lost sight of how to elevate the average hard working citizen and the country (eagle cry)

Any self-respecting Libertarian knows it's not a politician's job to elevate anyone. It's up to you to elevate yourself.

A libertarian politician ought to be advocating getting government out of the business of hassling businesses with pesky things like child-labor laws and telling his potential voters that they are on their own to make their own way . . . without publically funded things like police, roads, sidewalks, etc.

 

[Bronzeage]

Empirically, the answer is a resounding NO in the 20th and 21st centuries. So, either the working class is too smart (or too dumb) to be persuaded by a libertarian politician or libertarian politicians are too dumb to be able to persuade the working class of the merits of libertarian policies.

Libertarianism just doesn't fly except on the margins of conservatism. The small government meme. Other than that, the Libertarians won't ever be a real player as a movement or ideology. If so, they would be doing better as a party. Sander's new deal democratic socialism works well for millenials, the future voters.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/
11% of American voters identify as Libertarians of some sort, but that does not translate into voters for the Libertarian party.

Okay, that's two no votes.

Given that distribution of wealth in this country has ballooned at the top, and the numbers at the bottom continue to increase, what would be a sound Libertarian policy for growth?

Should they back policies which take from the rich and give to the poor? This means higher marginal tax rates in upper brackets, limits on corporation size, tax policies which favor manufacturing and service industry, over the financial sector.

What's the point of being an 11% party?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A Libertarian would need to convince the locals that they can bring a new industry into the region to replace the one that left. Of course, that would probably require grants, tax write-offs, etc... and that is assuming they can actually convince someone to come it. But overall, the required thing in an economically repressed area is new jobs. And new jobs come from industry. Then that helps create or sustain supplementary employment within a region.

 

[ksen]

You don't think all people, including the relatively poor, are better off in an economy with a higher GDP per capita?

I don't know . . . in an economy of $100,000 with 10 people and the bottom 9 having $1,000 and the top 1 having $91,000 that's $10,000 gdp per capita. I'm not sure the bottom 9 are much better off if gdp per capita rises to $20,000 gdp per capita and the split is $1,000 for the bottom 9 and $191,000 for the top 1.

- - - Updated - - -

A Libertarian would need to convince the locals that they can bring a new industry into the region to replace the one that left.

Why would they do that? It's not a libertarian politician's job to bring anything anywhere. It's their job to disentangle government from just about everything.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

What to tell a group of struggling, lower class people who are listening to you talk about how your libertarian policies will benefit them?

That's really fucking hard.

"I believe that private enterprise and hard work in the private sector is the key to making all of your lives better. Therefore, I promise I will not use the power of the government to bring prosperity to your region."

"Healthcare need not be affordable because insurance companies have a right to the greatest profit possible. That being, the case, I promise I will not lift a finger to see that you have access to health insurance, and even better, if you lose your job, I promise that you will not be able to turn to the government for help!" (sounds of cheers coming from the crowd).

"And because we have too much government regulation I'm going to disband the FDA so that pharmaceutical companies can bring new products to market for less, and if it causes you to grow a vestigial arm out of your forehead, you will have no ability to recover---or go to the hospital because hospitals will no longer be required to treat you in the ER!" (Cheers get louder)

"And finally, I want to assure you that when your roads begin to crack and your bridges fall into the river, not a dime of federal assistance will be given to you because you will have the opportunity to use private contractors to fix them!" (Crowd goes apeshit)

How do you sell entrepreneurialism to people who have no chance to start their own business and/or aren't inclined to? How do you sell no wage requirements to anyone except business owners?

And how do you sell social conservatives on the idea that government is not going to regulate other people's behavior?

It's a losing ideology from both sides of the platform.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know . . . in an economy of $100,000 with 10 people and the bottom 9 having $1,000 and the top 1 having $91,000 that's $10,000 gdp per capita. I'm not sure the bottom 9 are much better off if gdp per capita rises to $20,000 gdp per capita and the split is $1,000 for the bottom 9 and $191,000 for the top 1.

- - - Updated - - -

A Libertarian would need to convince the locals that they can bring a new industry into the region to replace the one that left.

Why would they do that? It's not a libertarian politician's job to bring anything anywhere. It's their job to disentangle government from just about everything.

Probably depends on the Libertarian. A libertarian may be more inclined to incentivizing an industry into the region to provide rather than pay more in unemployment benefits.

Of course, Libertarians who love the Free Market may not want to indicate that the Free Market sent their jobs overseas. Or better yet, an adjacent state stole the headquarters of the large corporation that used to be here.

 

[Deepak]

To paraphrase Jan Brady: OSHA, OSHA, OSHA!

 

[dismal]

You don't think all people, including the relatively poor, are better off in an economy with a higher GDP per capita?

Maybe you need to try being middle income in Bangladesh or Djibouti.

Of everyone is better off in an economy with a higher GDP. Is that your campaign speech?

My father had standard summary for politicians who spoke a lot, but didn't say anything. Such a man was "Against sin and for motherhood."

To say, "A rising tide raises all boats," sounds great if you own a boat. Are you going to write off the working poor, or is there some substance in Libertarianism that will make their life better, something more than, water for the tide to come in?

Well, my opponent obviously does not understand the importance of a healthy vibrant economy in bettering people's lives so it's no wonder he supports policies that crush entrepreneurship and growth.

 

[Bronzeage]

Of everyone is better off in an economy with a higher GDP. Is that your campaign speech?

My father had standard summary for politicians who spoke a lot, but didn't say anything. Such a man was "Against sin and for motherhood."

To say, "A rising tide raises all boats," sounds great if you own a boat. Are you going to write off the working poor, or is there some substance in Libertarianism that will make their life better, something more than, water for the tide to come in?

Well, my opponent obviously does not understand the importance of a healthy vibrant economy in bettering people's lives so it's no wonder he supports policies that crush entrepreneurship and growth.

They may be working poor but that doesn't mean they don't know a straw man when they see one. What policies do you propose that will improve the lives of these voters, through greater opportunities for entrepreneurship and growth.

 

[dismal]

Well, my opponent obviously does not understand the importance of a healthy vibrant economy in bettering people's lives so it's no wonder he supports policies that crush entrepreneurship and growth.

They may be working poor but that doesn't mean they don't know a straw man when they see one. What policies do you propose that will improve the lives of these voters, through greater opportunities for entrepreneurship and growth.

libertarian policies.

 

[laughing dog]

Okay, that's two no votes.

Given that distribution of wealth in this country has ballooned at the top, and the numbers at the bottom continue to increase, what would be a sound Libertarian policy for growth?

Should they back policies which take from the rich and give to the poor? This means higher marginal tax rates in upper brackets, limits on corporation size, tax policies which favor manufacturing and service industry, over the financial sector.

Libertarians are against gov't redistribution of income.

What's the point of being an 11% party?

Ideological purity.

 

[Axulus]

The problem with this question is there is a reasoned answer about why libertarian policies make everyone better off and there is retail politics.

As you have asked it, the retail politics themes I would emphasize, off the top of my head might be:

- We need to get America working and producing things and you don't do that by heaping more regulations, red tape and taxes on employers (parade of horribles)
- We will cut the fraud, waste, abuse, special interest benefits, etc by significantly reducing the size of the government and this will result in more dollars being spent on growing the economy and producing things (parade of horribles)
- We need policies that reward the hard working, law abiding citizen and unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans
- The Republicans and Democrats are so busy squabbling over whose lives matter, hate cakes, and bathroom rights for Caitlyn Jenner that they have lost sight of how to elevate the average hard working citizen and the country (eagle cry)
- I like Freedom (eagle cry)
- Freedom is good. (eagle cry)

That's the same thing Republicans and Democrats say.

The question is, what Libertarian policies would have an impact on working poor people, which would improve their lives?

One easy one: stop putting so much restrictions on new housing construction and stop subsidizing demand for homeownership (mortgage interest and real estate tax deduction, reduced downpayment requirements and reducted mortgage interest rates). When you restrict supply and subsidize demand like is done with housing, large price increases are the result. Those working americans will have to pay a whole lot more in rent. Lower rent (usually the single biggest expense they incur in their lives) will benefit their lives.

 

[ksen]

That's the same thing Republicans and Democrats say.

The question is, what Libertarian policies would have an impact on working poor people, which would improve their lives?

One easy one: stop putting so much restrictions on new housing construction

I agree. If I, in Florida, want to buy a cheap house that cannot withstand hurricane force winds I should be allowed to do that. My liberty is being needlessly violated by forcing me to buy a home that can withstand 80 to 100mph winds without my roof crashing down and killing me in my sleep. And don't get me started on how fire codes make me no better than a government thrall.

and stop subsidizing demand for homeownership (mortgage interest and real estate tax deduction, reduced downpayment requirements and reducted mortgage interest rates).

Good luck getting rich libertarians on board with that one since it's the wealthy that receive the most benefit from those tax deductions. Besides, isn't one of the goals of libertarian policy to lower your tax bill as much as possible? A policy that would raise tax bills seems a bit antithetical to that political philosophy.

When you restrict supply and subsidize demand like is done with housing, large price increases are the result. Those working americans will have to pay a whole lot more in rent. Lower rent (usually the single biggest expense they incur in their lives) will benefit their lives.

You're assuming rents would actually go down if those costs were removed. Why would landlords lower the rent instead of keeping their rent steady and pocketing the difference?

 

[Bronzeage]

They may be working poor but that doesn't mean they don't know a straw man when they see one. What policies do you propose that will improve the lives of these voters, through greater opportunities for entrepreneurship and growth.

libertarian policies.

Could you be a little less vague. I'm trying to wring out the "against sin and for motherhood" platitudes.

 

[ksen]

libertarian policies.

Could you be a little less vague.

Probably not.

 

[Axulus]

I agree. If I, in Florida, want to buy a cheap house that cannot withstand hurricane force winds I should be allowed to do that. My liberty is being needlessly violated by forcing me to buy a home that can withstand 80 to 100mph winds without my roof crashing down and killing me in my sleep. And don't get me started on how fire codes make me no better than a government thrall.

You can imagine no state of affairs between all the restrictions we have now and houses crumbling in a hurricane?

Take a look at housing prices and average rents in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and almost every city in TX vs. any city in CA.

Good luck getting rich libertarians on board with that one since it's the wealthy that receive the most benefit from those tax deductions.

Goalpost shift

Besides, isn't one of the goals of libertarian policy to lower your tax bill as much as possible? A policy that would raise tax bills seems a bit antithetical to that political philosophy.

Not by distorting markets and giving tax handouts to poitically favored groups.

You're assuming rents would actually go down if those costs were removed. Why would landlords lower the rent instead of keeping their rent steady and pocketing the difference?

If being a landlord become more profitable like that, you'd get more people becoming landlords and investing in new housing and turning them into rentals, thus driving down rents. Simple econ 101.

 

[Bronzeage]

That's the same thing Republicans and Democrats say.

The question is, what Libertarian policies would have an impact on working poor people, which would improve their lives?

One easy one: stop putting so much restrictions on new housing construction and stop subsidizing demand for homeownership (mortgage interest and real estate tax deduction, reduced downpayment requirements and reducted mortgage interest rates). When you restrict supply and subsidize demand like is done with housing, large price increases are the result. Those working americans will have to pay a whole lot more in rent. Lower rent (usually the single biggest expense they incur in their lives) will benefit their lives.

Restrictions on new housing are not arbitrarily put in place to maintain high real estate prices. The most common reasons for restrictions are environmental concerns(flood zones, drainage, etc) and surrounding infrastructure. When you put a 200 home development at the end of a 2 lane country road, it causes problems where that road meets the main highway.

But, you raise an interesting point. Would it be possible to socially engineer Libertarianism? Maybe the government could renew it's homestead program. Unused and under utilized land could be sold to individuals for a small price with a contract to make certain improvements, such as sewer and electric service. After the five years of residency, you have the right to say, "Get off my land."