Libertarians Win a Hearing in Debate Case

The New York Sun ^ | October 11, 2004 | Josh Gerstein

[LibertyRocks]

If you are unfamiliar with this case you may wish to know that the CPD willfully, and _knowingly_ tried to avoid service of the orders to show cause.

No matter what side of the issue you are on I think we can agree that an organization who would attempt to avoid legal service is not one that should be hosting debates, no matter who funds them or who is in them.

[LibertyRocks]

Ping! Please add to your bump list?

[ImpBill]

Great! Bring all the candidates in. Libertarian, Socialist Party, Green, Constitutional Party, etc. Heck bring in the dog catchers as well. The more the merrier. Should be quite a show and draw record viewers from around the world.

[flashbunny]

Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

I notice that too, nice catch.

[z3n]

"Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event."
Not at all. You are confusing Libertarians with Anarchists. Completely different. Libertarians do not oppose the justice system whatsoever. If anything, Libertarians have a problem with the legislative and executive braches of the government over-reaching their constitutional limitaitons.

In this case, why wouldn't a presidetial cadidate on the ballot be allowed to have a voice in a debate if there wasn't a two party collusion against it.

[Cultural Jihad]

Yet again the moral-liberal Me-ocrats in the so-called 'party of principle' have shown they are no friend of liberty or the rights of people to live in the kind of society they want to live in.

[Cultural Jihad]

In this case, why wouldn't a presidetial cadidate on the ballot be allowed to have a voice in a debate if there wasn't a two party collusion against it.

Show me chapter and verse where the Constitution says all fringed ideologues have a right to be heard.

[Xenalyte]

It's in the same place you find the right to privacy. Take a look.

[z3n]

"Show me chapter and verse where the Constitution says all fringed ideologues have a right to be heard."

The constitution was not the salient point in my post.

My point was that libertarians stand for individual liberties protected from the group (mob rule), or more aptly, the government. This government has built in a system that is now constructed to support the 2 party system and exclude potential 3rd parties. This is very much in the spirit of libertarianism to give the little guy a voice against the powers that would exclude him.

[Kurt_D]

OK, I really like the Libertarian Party.... but they should cope with the fact, that they are at the moment an irrelevant party. In order for a third party to join a debate it has to get some sort of popular support (e.g. Perot and the Reform Party).

[flashbunny]

no, I'm not. I know what libertarians believe - I hold some of the same beliefs.

Here's an analogies for you: The masters. Smoking bans in bars. Libertarians trying to get into a private event via the the court system.

The commission is a private organization. Not public. It's made up of the two parties. There is not constitutional authority that can give a private party the right to force their way into the debate. The debate is being held with privately raised funds as well.

This is almost as pathetic as the constitution party candidate saying he'll ban all abortions with an executive order that re-inteprets the 5th amendment.

The Libertarin party is once again reminding me why I don't call my self a libertarian. They're sadly little more than a joke.

[LibertyRocks]

Flashbunny said: Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event.

Reply: That's the point you failed to see. This lawsuit is being brought because this event is NOT being paid for by private money. ASU has only raised PLEDGES of $2.3 million to pay for this event. Their own budget shows a price tag of $2.5 million. Who is left holding the bag if they fail to come up with the rest of the money - the Arizona TAXPAYERS...

That's why this suit is being filed.

[z3n]

"The Libertarin party is once again reminding me why I don't call my self a libertarian. They're sadly little more than a joke"

I smell fear. Seriously. Where does this kind of attack come from? Both parties fear the libertarian party far more than they do any of the others, including those who have had some limited success in the past (reform, green).

[LibertyRocks]

The REPUBLICAN party was once a "Fringe" third-party too.

[familyop]

Ah, the lawyers' anarchist party with its dream for a borderless nation of lawsuits speaks again! Anarchists haven't changed at all since the early 1900s, and they continue to support their friends in that other Party. And this is my polite way of saying it.

[flashbunny]

no, the suit is being filed because the libertarian party is unfortunately run by incompetents and babies.

There is no conspiracy to keep the libertarian party down. The party does that well enough on it's own.

[sinkspur]

Both parties fear the libertarian party far more than they do any of the others, including those who have had some limited success in the past (reform, green).

LOL!!! Nader says the same thing.

The fringers are not part of the debates for the same reason children are not allowed to drive cars.

[Cultural Jihad]

This government has built in a system that is now constructed to support the 2 party system and exclude potential 3rd parties.

Nonsense. The mere fact that the Libertarian Party is present on the ballots in 48 states certainly undercuts your hyperbolic statement that the government exludes potential (or even viable) 3rd parties.

People are well able to see the shabby political product sitting on the LP shelf and choose, in a freewill choice freely made, to walk away from it. Any other explanation or rationalization is sour grapes.

[A2J]

I think Bush should seize this opportunity to make a stand in inviting Nader and the Libertarian Party to this week's debate to see Kerry's attitude. Afterall, it has been Kerry filing suits all over the country in an attempt to bar Nader from being placed on state ballots.

Bush could pull a "Reagan" and insist on their inclusion or threaten to back out.