Is the Libertarian Party right to sue the Commission on Presidential Debates?

 

The Libertarian Party (LP) claims to be “the Party of Principle.” As someone who has subscribed to the political philosophy of libertarianism for close to ten years (my entire adult life) and cares for it deeply, I am often put off by the shenanigans of the official LP which contradict those very principles. I do think that libertarianism is founded on some very strong principles. I'd say that those principles are more solid than any other political philosophy or party. I think those principles are important and must be maintained for social progress. It is for these reasons that I feel that libertarians must strictly hold the LP to high standards – to those very principles. If we sacrifice those principles in our attempt gain office we won't have them once we're in office; we'll be just like the Democrat or Republican candidates – telling it's followers what they want to hear to gain voter support while playing cut-throat politics to maintain power.

So, what in blazes am I talking about?

On September 29, 2015 the LP filed a lawsuit (not the first of it's kind which the party has filed) alongside the Green Party against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) arguing that the requirements the organization set up for presidential candidates to participate in its debate events keep third parties from being eligible year after year.ⁱ I won't discuss what those requirements are, or what the lawsuit wants them to be changed to because it's completely beside the point.

Well, isn't the LP being discriminated against along with other third parties? Isn't there a conflict of interest since the CPD was created by just the Democratic and Republican parties? Didn't then (1987) co-chairman for the CPD Paul G. Kirk, Jr. say he believed that third party candidates should be outright excluded from the panel?ⁱⁱ Doesn't the LP have a right to that stage to give the people a third option?

To answer my own questions: yes, yes, yes, no.

I'll repeat this unpopular opinion: No, the LP does not have a right to the CPD debate.

The fact of the matter is, the official sounding CPD is actually a private corporation, founded jointly by the Democratic and Republican parties, also private institutions which, to the best of my knowledge, receive no government subsidies. The CPD is completely privately funded, the debate events it holds are private events, and the rules they create are legally sanctioned by the foundational principles of private property over which they have ownership. The presidential debates is a product disguised as a public service. The LP has no more right to demand participation in it (let alone it changing the rules of this private organization) than the Raiders have a right to demand participation in the Super Bowl without qualifying by the NFL's rules.

Do they have a monopoly on something that has much influence over the election? Arguably you could say that they do, but that is only because of a combination of a lack of conscientious consumerism and competition. It's only because so many people watch the CPD debates exclusively that they have said “monopoly.” That is completely at the fault of the American collective. If there was enough demand otherwise, things would change very quickly. Anybody can hold a presidential debate. After all, before the CPD there were other independent presidential debates. Quite frankly, there were years in which no presidential debates were even held (i.e. 1964, 1968, & 1972).ⁱⁱⁱ The CPD dominance can be largely attributed to the lack of supply within a marketplace where there was clearly demand. The Libertarian Party did host a “Third Party Presidential Debate” in 2012, but ultimately that didn't directly compete with the event which included the two largest presidential candidates.^iv

The way I see it, the only three outcomes that would favor third parties such as the LP that don't violate libertarian principles are if a third party meets the CPD requirements to participate (15% voter support), the CPD voluntarily changes it's own rules to include third party presidential candidates more easily, or if a different event holds a presidential debate including the Democratic and Republican nominees alongside third party candidates due to enough demand (much of which would have to come from within each of the two major parties) for such an event. As a supporter of competition within the marketplace, I'm holding out for the third option.

Is it deplorable that we're in the situation we're in right now? Yes, it is. I don't like it. I'm not saying that libertarians should lay back and accept the situation for what it is. We have to work towards change to achieve any of our social goals. I don't like the CPD. I don't like the power it holds over public opinion on the presidential elections or how it uses that power. I don't like that year after year the LP is kept as much in the dark as the Democrats and Republicans can keep it in. But, it's the people who subscribe to the CPD events. It's the people who give the two major parties the support they have. It's the people who complain that both choices are corrupt or inadequate but choose not to look at alternatives. The CPD is a private corporation. They have every right over their product – the presidential debates they hold. They have every right to make whatever rules they wish for the event. The LP has no right to bust in and tell them to change a thing.

You've all heard the phrase, “I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll fight for your right to say it.” I think that hits home to a lot of libertarians. What of property rights? Are you going to violate them just because you don't like the product? Are your actions going to be determined by an emotional outrage due to injustice or will they be founded by principle?

ihttps://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-and-green-parties-sue-fec-for-anti-trust-violations-in-presidential

iihttp://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/19/us/democrats-and-republicans-form-panel-to-hold-presidential-debates.html

iiihttp://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview

ivhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/13/libertarian-party-sues-chance-stand-2016-president/

Smoking Bans: A Debate Filled With Erroneous Polarized Arguments

During High School, I took a class on argumentation and debate. One of the topics that we had to debate was the issue of smoking bans in restaurants and bars, a trend which has been sweeping through the United States over the past several decades. I expressed my strong views on the subject, and as such was placed by the teacher onto the side of the debate which I personally opposed. The arguments each side used during the debate were ones I was quite familiar with. The smokers wanted the right to smoke while the non-smokers wanted the right to breathe clean air. Throughout the entire process, I desperately wanted to go to the other side and explain to them exactly what kind of argument they could use to beat us, but I was forbidden to do so. I wanted to give them my reasoning on the subject, reasoning that I hadn't seen pop up too often during this kind of debate. My side won the argument, and I walked away with the most disappointed bittersweet victory I had ever tasted.

Fast forward many years, and I now find myself working in a bar. Consequently, my work environment is filled with discussions on such topics, and when the city of Fort Collins decided to ban smoking not just inside of bars and restaurants (as had already happened many years prior), but also on all patios as well. This move sparked conversation on this familiar debate, and I kept hearing those same arguments which I had heard during my High School class: the smokers wanted the right to smoke while the non-smokers wanted the right to breathe clean air.

It is this political climate which has inspired me to finally formulate my two cents on the subject publicly. There is a profound flaw in the way that this issue is being debated. The reason why I felt such torture all those years ago in the classroom was that the focus was thrown onto the incorrect parties throughout the entire thing. The debate focused on the smokers and non-smokers, but there is a far more relevant party which this issue, and any laws passed on it, affects far more than the clients of these businesses.

Have you guessed it? I'm talking about the business owners. They are the ones who are being restricted from providing the types of services they wish to provide. They are the ones who put forth the money for the businesses, own the property with which the businesses operate, and pay taxes on their entrepreneurial endeavors. They are the ones who should be able to decide what kind of environment their customers walk into when they walk into the restaurants and bars in question. They are the ones who have the law breathing down their necks on this issue.

I can understand why this argument has thrown so much focus on smokers vs non-smokers. They are two interested parties who are very polarized. They both want to live their lives with the freedom to do so however they see fit and they are easy to group into opposing factions. This polarization appears to give credence to the smoker vs non-smoker argument.

But, I urge you to understand that this is ultimately a fallacy. If we really want to promote freedom, in all aspects, to where people can live however they choose to, we must respect the property rights of business owners. The businesses in question should be able to provide whatever kind of service they choose to. However they choose to rule on this subject internally, they will attract or repulse customers based on their decisions. There will be places where smoking won't be allowed without there ever being a law dictating that. Perhaps smokers won't go there. That's something between the establishment and their potential customers. The law has no place in this. There'll be places with non-smoking sections and smoking sections. Adament non-smokers might choose not to go there. Again, that is their decision. And finally, there will be businesses which  allow smoking. At that point, the non-smoker chooses to enter or evade that establishment by their own prerogative. Caveat emptor.

"Ah," but some smoking ban supporters might say, "but what about the employees who work at establishments where smoking is permitted? That constant second hand smoke will affect their health." Perhaps so, but they chose to work there. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them that they have to work there. They might further argue that there could be circumstances where the only jobs available for certain people would be at establishments where smoking is allowed. Nonetheless, it is ultimately their decision to engage in employment at such establishments. It sounds harsh, but responsibility must accompany freedom.

It is not the job of the government to protect people from themselves. Life isn't a cakewalk, and it never will be. History has shown that whenever the government steps in in such a manner that it usually doesn't improve the situation. People should be left to their own devices without having Big Brother breathing down their necks. Some will surely harm themselves, but it's not the government's job to prevent this as in doing so they will only hinder others from succeeding by imposing on their liberties, which is, when you think about it, ultimately quite un-American.