The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
Thursday, November 7, 2013
"The Problem With Libertarians." -- "Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?"
And arguments between Repubs, Libertarians, etc, and anyone else not Demo/commie/collectivist is just what OPFOR wants, works tirelessly at, and gets, every day of the year. While we dither and argue and call each other names, the collectivists are acting and getting their agenda accomplished. We do their job for them, waiting for them to act, and then we react, and fight each other tooth and nail, while they blithely carry on, as you Mike, well know all this is in their playbook. All that is being pointed out in this article is that the collectivist agenda part of the plan regarding this is working, and working well. And of course, once again, no solution offered, and none taken. It's like watching the paint dry. In the end I believe what will unite us is that all of us who do not resist, who do not abjectly surrender, will meet on the wrong side of the barbed wire, awaiting our fate. And I think that Russian fella wrote something memorable about, " How we burned in the camps", that will prove both prophetic, and a condemnation. I'd rather be sewed up in a bag with a werewolf, and tossed in the river, than to see what's coming.
Years ago, the loyalists feared the rise of a individual liberty based party that would threaten the locked arm strategy of control that democrats and republicans created to insulate us from our governance (all while claiming to be the conduits to it). In order to protect that power structure, they infected the Libertarian party so that it could be set up to be mocked easily. That created the meme that voting for a third party just elected democrats. Both parties love it.
Hilariously, the TEA party was born anyway. This because, though politicians refuse to just admit it, the American spirit of Freedom in Liberty is unbreakable. Regardless of their games, their will always be freemen who rise up against tyrants.
So why the hit piece now? Why the "starting" of " arguments? Well THATS the purpose! The powerful now FEAR that the small l libertarian mindset is turning people away from both establishment parties. They speak of the civil war in the Republican Party, while watching Democrats run from Obamacare Accountability. They need DIVISION as Americans seek unity and they must DESTROY any and all possible COMPETITION. COMMIES, are, after all, opposed to competition as the anti capitalists that they are.
The big L party has surpassed their ballot control measures. It has jumped all the hurdles and that's what they fear MOST.
What the big L party needs is the small l message. Most Americans, by far, are small l libertarians, in that, they want to do their own thing and be LEFT ALONE by gubmint. Party politicians FEAR that UNITY because their inflicted DIVISION called "campaigns " falls asunder in the face of that unity.
For instance - gayness ? I think its wrong BUT it's a matter of pursuit of happiness thus not a government issue. Guns? Some can think they are bad BUT it's a right so again, not a issue for government. Abortion? Same thing. "Drug war? Yup that too. Can't have people figuring out that power to jail you over a pot plant is the same power to jail you over a tomato plant! . Take ALL the staple issues that the corrupt parties run campaigns on away from then via unity around First Principals,as a matter NOT for government, and both parties are EXPOSED as the "used car salesman" LIARS that they are.
Nope, they MUST make sure that Americans stay divided along non government issues in order to avoid losing their ill gotten authority. They must destroy liberty itself in order to control the serfs.
So how do we respond? We refuse to descend into the petty arguments they want. We continue to educate our countrymen about the game party politicians play. We reject the "you are throwing your vote away" and we disregard ALL letters behind a candidates name as the MEANINGLESS label that it is. We vote FOR those who EARN it but NEVER "against " anyone. Above all else, we tell the TRUTH, especially in the fave of those who try to demonize us when we do so. We call out the DIVIDERS - like the author of this trite drivel.
The founders and original framers warned us all about political factions and how they were hotbeds of corruption. WE SHOULD LISTEN to those warnings.
It means being able to actually critically think.... rationally...something hard core conservatives seem incapable or unwilling to do. "Potty trained at gun point" may be an accurate phrase for describing their inflexibility of thought, LOL.
The article flat out lies. No solutions are offered? Really? How about the FairTax? How about LFTR technology for clean, sustainable energy as policy? How about the idea of citizen soldiers based more on the founders ideals of standing armies which would help avoid going around the world encroaching on other nation's sovereignty? How about anything from Bill Still? How about realizing that it's not about illicit drugs as much as it is about determining who owns your body and can tell you what you can put in it....the state or you?
No, the problem is that the main stream Libertarian Party has been co-opted by people who do NOT hold libertarian principles...they are Republican light with dope smoking as a distraction. The author is right about that....and the last election with Gary Johnson, who was NOT in favor of smaller government and couldn't even manage to run a campaign that wasn't in debt. He was just a Republican trying to run on a different ticket since his party wouldn't elect him.
It is a problem, one that the enemies of this country use every chance they get. That said, What should one make of a party leadership that deliberately allows it's candidates to fail and refuses to support them, when the need is dire?
My thought would be that everything has been calculated to create the circumstances wherein only evil can win, or rather Marxists, which is in this case, the same thing.
Hunter has some valid points. The Libertarian (Party, in particular) brand has become a label slapped on Republican-Lite. At best.
But part of the problem with "prominent" libertarians advocating real libertarian views and and solutions is that "prominent" tends to be determine by the lamestream muddia with a vested interest in obfuscating real libertarianism. There are people working for what Hunter says he wants to see. But unless you read the right blogs and alternate (and... less-than-popular) news sites, and have the right contacts, you probably wouldn't you know it.
The problem with the Libertarian Party specifically is that it opted for publicity over principle. To be generous, I think most of them were trying to counter the problem in the above paragraph, but others (Root, Barr) were meely opportunists; little frogs chased out of the big pond trying to be big frogs in the little LP pond.
Groups like the FSP are doing what Hunter wants to see, but they get painted as a "gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized," even when they aren't. To get anything done at the legislative level, FSP members had to infiltrate the Dems and Reps, often going to some effort to hide that have any FSP affiliation at all. (There are a lot more FSP libertarians in the state house than most folks -- including the DEM and Rep bosses -- realize now.)
Another problem is that many of the people tying to do what Hunter wants gave up. We busted ass for years, only for ridicule and backstabbing by the LP. So, like the covert FSP porcupines, we work quietly without mentioning we're libertarians. But that robs us of a lot of capability for organized action.
I'm obviously in the wrong business if this is what passes for professional political commentary.
"They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy."
WHAT???? You mean the libertarians once upon a time did NOT want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy??? Where has this clown been for the last 35 years? And while he's at it, perhaps he can tell us all the wonderful things an interventionist f/p has done for us over the last hundred years.
"But as bad as McCain was (and still is), he was better than Barack Obama."
This is highly debateable. Even more important is that principle matters. When one votes for "the lesser of two evils" one is affirmatively voting for evil. What should a principled person do when presented with such a choice? Too often, we're told "Hold your nose". The libertarians are now telling the GOP "find us a candidate we can vote for with one hand."
"Thanks to Maher and his ilk, the term Libertarian does now come closer to what he thinks it is than it used to."
This is unalloyed BS. Every (small-L) libertarian I know laughs when they hear this. Libertarianism is what it has always been: a political sense that the government should be as small as possible and do as little as necessary. When does he think that changed?
"The Virginia gubernatorial race wasn't lost by Ken Cuccinelli. It was lost by the GOP establishment. The national party took their ball and went home early..."
Oh, so it WASN'T the Libertarians?? Tell me again what his point was.
"Well, this is going to start more than a few arguments."
Yep... more of the usual. But it is as pointless as the arguments between "conservatives" and "liberals." They just want different pieces of your butt. Every politician has a wonderful plan for your life and your property... trust them.
I don't need a label. And I don't need any politicians.
I have neither the time, nor the energy to argue with someone who takes a stand against liberty, no matter what the form. If, and when the time comes my answer will come 150 grains at a time. Until then my energies are better spent elsewhere.
Does this guy even know Libertarians? Or does he simply hang out with the ones inside the Beltway and exclaim "these guys are like anti-Liberartians!".
What did he expect to find in DC? Up here in NH we are flush with Libertarians and they wouldn't know what to do with those bozos.
I don't know any Libertarians who cheered when Obama won. I know of few who have much interest in drug policy as a primary issue beyond the positive benefits of ending the War on Drugs (which usually comes about through Police State discussions, not drugs). Never heard a one talk about hookers.
"Taking our ball and going home" is a pretty cynical way to describe reformed Neo-Cons, like myself, who realized the Republican Party is playing the Conservatives like a fiddle by splitting them six ways to Sunday against one or two liberals then watching as the Neo-Con lemmings line up behind the liberal who makes a few positive comments about guns or God. Its sickening.
We all know that the two Parties would be toast if one decent Libertarian took the debate stand and brought the conversation above a 6-th grade information level. Look at how Herman Cain energized the Conservatives by simply being able to string two coherent complex ideas together in a sentence.
Thanks for posting, its good to sample all the chatter. I think the guy needs to get out of the Asylum before he can make a judgement call on an entire movement.
I've always said that any sentence beginning, "All libertarians believe. . . " is guaranteed to be wrong on some level. There's no bright line to step across into "libertarian", it's a direction, not a destination.
It's easy to decry libertarian purism and intractability, God knows I do enough of it myself, and I are one. For the rest of you, doesn't that beam in your eye itch? I see the same behavior from SoCons, progressives, all over the spectrum. Remember the recent blogobloviator who called for boycotting the NSA March to protest the icky libertarians involved?
Yes, there are tribal libertarians who march around behind standard bearers like the Pauls and don't really think the policies through. There are libertarians who fit the "pot-smoking Republicans" label. Bill Maher is a libertarian for whatever value of "libertarian" he's using. It's a free country and nobody owns the label . . .
So screw the label, listen to the man. Think for yourself.
C'mon Mike. The non-aggression principle is pretty universal. If you cross it, whether it be against another person or their property, you can bet karma will be coming your way. It's called principles, and if you don't have any, then you're just like the commies for whom "them means justify the ends."
Now banking on getting libertarian politicians elected is kind of a pipe dreams. The best politicians are also some of the smarter and shrewder sociopaths among us. Those who get elected are the ones who can convince the most people that they are just like them, without alienating any of the other factions. In other words, lying through you teeth to get to the power that you really covet.
IMHO, our best bet is to get the Republicans to recognize that without us liberty minded folks, they can't win elections. Then, and maybe only then, can we force them to address the liberty issues
Several articles like this are appearing all at once.
Have the Koch brothers really worn out their welcome among the Republicans, or do they just need a little taking down? They were quite useful for a while, but they (or their affiliates) apparently went beyond bounds in NJ and now need to be brought to heel.
Things have been working EXACTLY as they are supposed to for quite some time here. Lots of money is spent on both "sides" to assure important investments will continue to be safe for their planned durations and that the right sorts of business will run smoothly and profitably. The last thing anyone (particularly anyone with important investments) needs is a group of people who actually believe some aspects of the propaganda going rogue and having an unplanned for effect.
With the proper spin, control mechanisms used to correct such things can also be used for infotainment and earn advertising dollars- A twofer!
The infiltration and dilution of the limited government movement continues. I won't change my principles just because some jackass co-opts the label. (hint: this applies to III-per's too & classical liberals)
Freedom in economics & freedom in society. Those are principles the founders understood and argued over in detail. I love God and am Christian, but, forcing my morality on someone else is evil.
Likewise it is my solemn duty to resist such evil when others attempt to enforce their morality under the color of law and force if it does not involve actual damage to person or property.
I like your term 'Christian Libertarian'. I use it personally, although you probably wouldn't agree with me using it because of my denomination. Regardless, I see you as my brother in Christ & co-belligerent in the war against collectivist tyranny.
I think Ron Paul was the best organized, most cogent Libertarian in recent history. Before the election, his web pages and personal appearances explained the problems he observed, and his proposed solutions for them. They made sense to me. He was not bought, owed nothing to big money, big media, or big labor. He actually worked for a living and did not suck from the public teat for 25 years or engage in various financial frauds. He did not tell a percentage of Americans that they were without value. Unfortunately, his ideas did not reach the average American, and we ended up with the current collectivist in the white house. His opponent is presumably still busy closing companies and ending Americans' jobs. If libertarians have at least reached spoiler status in elections, that is some improvement on the past. Perhaps people are starting to listen. The way to go in this country is small and local. I certainly do not have all the answers, but I will keep voting for libertarian candidates as long as there are decent ones. The only extremism I can stand is in the defense of the constitution. True libertarians will always follow whomever offers the most freedom. What you believe in your heart is more important than a label someone tries to hang on you.
When I have had enough courage and/or disgust to vote for Libertarians in the past, my rationale was that if the GOP saw Republican candidates losing because of "spoiler" Libertarian candidates, the GOP would eventually be dragged, kicking and screaming to conservative/liberty principles.
What we didm't think was that the "establishment" GOP would RATHER lose elections to Democrats as long as the right "republicans" are allowed to stay in office, singing harmony for their allies on the left.
The corruption is systemic.
Any conjecture that there is still a peaceful political solution, is delusional.
Being a libertarian is more than smoking dope and banging hookers. Being a libertarian is not even about dope or hookers. Being a libertarian is believing that much if not most of what the U S Government seeks to gets it's nose into is none of the government's damn business, including, but not in any way limited to, such red herring objections as being able to decide what to ingest, smoke or drink and/or what if any monetary transactions may be associated with a consensual sexual act between adults.
It's better to be attacked than ignored. This is a step up for libertarians.
"They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy."
Um, is there something wrong with not throwing people in cages for smoking a plant, an act that is no one else's business? Is there something wrong with letting other people trade for whatever they please, harming nobody else? Is there something wrong with not warring on people in other countries who are not harming us? Funny, I thought L's were always for those things. I guess consistency bothers some people.
The real problem with libertarians is that they soon morph into anarchists and will have nothing to do with the political process at all. If that is a problem. Anyway we eventually all become apostates from the government religion. Nonbelievers in the established American religion.
Anon @ 4:30 - why do you say Ron Paul is "goofy?" Please don't tell me you are basing this on what the mainstream media says, or what some neo con clowns on talk radio say. Paul has consistently been talking about the police state, the federal reserve, gun rights, etc decades before the same talk radio and foxnews types jumped on the bandwagon. I still remember in 08 the same idiots who constantly talk about the fed or the NSA stuff now like beck or rush bashing Ron Paul and saying he was crazy and a nut for the views they now hold. If you are basing it on him not being some sort of used car talking salesman like all other national politicians, that is one of the reasons he is so extremely popular among the under 30 crowd who don't expect to be bullshitted like older people do.
Besides, Ron Paul is literally the only person I have seen who has converted young people from being anti gun to being pro gun in my lifetime, among many other liberty related issues.
Ps. While it has greatly deviated from its origins, do you want to guess where the tea party started?
And we are such an anti libertarian society not bc of some politician, but because of the govt school system that teaches outright nonsense and lies. That is why the home schooling movement is so huge, and the only way we will ever get back to a level playing field and not have a nation full of idiots. The pledge of allegiance, for instance, is usually mandatory in govt schools, but how many are even aware that it was written by a socialist as a way to brainwash kids that states can never secede and we must always bow down to the central govt? And that nullification was used for racist purposes - ignoring that Wisconsin nullified the fugitive slave act. Or how many even know what nullification is, and how the primary authors of the Declaration of Independence and the constitution fully endorsed nullifying unjust federal laws? Heck, how many people even know that Obama has murdered us citizens with drone strikes without charge or trial?
It took the progressives decades of gradual victories to be in the position we are in now, so it is going to take a few generations of home schooling to change that.
So Anon at 2:35AM prefers a good looking, morally bankrupt, unprincipled snake to someone who looks "goofy".
Go back to watching American Idol and TMZ, you dolt. If appearance is all that matters....Congrats, you fit right in with the rest of the dumb ass Amerikan populace.
PS. I'm not a huge Ron or Rand Paul fan....there are far more consistent libertarians out there, but they are heads and shoulders over most of what we keep sending to the hill.
The level of moral corruption that exists in our country today eliminates libertarianism or capitalism. The next logical stop is totalitarianism. God help us.
The difference between republocrats and demopublicans on the one hand, and Libertarians on the other is principles. Libertarians have them, and they all agree with the Zero-aggression principle, or they aren't Libertarians, as much as they might claim otherwise.
What enumerated power is employed to make "drugs " "illegal"? The Constitution itself had to be amended to provide government of republican form the authority to declare alcohol "illegal" and this prohibit it. Amendment. 18 is a clear admission that government DID NOT HAVE such authority. This newfound power was REPEALED in its entirety - and all that authority with it.
Americans have been tricked into a "there outa be a law" mentality produced by playing on emotions that pit one American against another. Politicians have played on the " should we or shouldn't we " level - intentionally ignoring the "can we or can't we (decided by constitutional limitations) level.
Notice how anti liberty and fake liberty supporters all try to argue on the "should - shouldn't" level absent any discussion about actual government BASE authority ? They will tout. " illegal" as if that term is literally unquestionable.
If you smoke crack you are a fool. If you have a hooker give ya a bill Clinton yer nasty. If you abort a baby you are terminating a pregnancy. If you gamble away your paycheck. ( with dice or Wall Street brokers) you are an idiot. The examples abound but one thing remains a constant - NONE OF IT is governments business. Government was neither created nor empowered to micromanage any of these decisions or punish-reward them. It was created to secure the blessings of liberty - protect the CHOICE of each individual.
Whether those, or even guns, the decision itself is for each individual to make for themselves. For the better or for the worse ( as subjective as that is) government is tasked with staying out of it - empowered only to enforce the terms of mutually agreed to contracts.
Those who want to talk about drugs and hookers do so because they want to avoid dealing with the PURPOSE of government that is both declared and constituted.
We do not need a new party or a reformation if an existing party. What we require is a population that has the courage to address the BASICS, the FUNDAMENTALS, of declared and constituted governance. We must oust politicians, bent on obfuscation, replacing them with STATESMEN dedicated to holding government to within its scripted boundaries.
Anonymous at 2:35 - so what you are saying is you just repeat verbatim what the same media types who want all guns banned have to say about the only real threat to the dc establishment? The same media types who call ALL gun owners goofy and crazy bc you don't like his face or his personality?
You are a perfect example of govt school and media indoctrination making the us the dumbest country in the world. Thomas jefferson was an awful public speaker, and inhave no doubt you would be saying thr same about him if he were alive today with how feeble your thinking skills are. Thank you for proving my point that home schooling is our only option, we can't win with people like you making up the masses.
Anon @ 8:15 - glad to see someone else notice the stupidity of caring about looks. I have been a hardcore libertarian for over a decade and am curious as to who at the national level has been more consistent in your eyes as a libertarian than Ron? Just curious, not attacking at all. I certainly agree about rand though, and think he is going to be like Reagan and end up screwing us over while pretending to be liberty minded. He sure aint his dad!
"The real problem with libertarians is that they soon morph into anarchists and will have nothing to do with the political process at all. If that is a problem. Anyway we eventually all become apostates from the government religion. Nonbelievers in the established American religion."
I am in full agreement with Paul on this. This harping & bitching about "libertarians" is just a sign that the collectivists are both scared and pissed that the sheep are finally waking up and fleeing the sheep pen (or an Indian "going off the res").
As more people clear the indoctrinated political pablum from between their ears and start examining "authority/gov" critically and logically (and yes, this includes "parchment worship" as regards the constitution, read "Hologram Of Liberty" by Kenneth Royce) they come to the realization that neither gov or authority exist..no more than santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth fairy.
Don't take my word for it; read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose and view the numerous videos he and his wife Tessa have put up on YouTube on the reality of Anarchy/Voluntarism and stateless socities.
I started my journey as a small "l" libertarian, I know proudly call myself an anarchist. All that means is that I follow the Zero Aggression Principle, I own myself and do not own anyone else, and as such I will never have anything to do with any collectivist political activity which is nothing more than a thinly disguised mechanism for coercion, extortion, theft/fraud, and outright murder.
Libertarianism is philosophically a very good place for lovers of freedom to begin. It serves it's purpose if the individual matures from it to being an anarchist as that is the final and proper evolution personally/philosophically.
As for the issues of drugs, prostitutes, guns and everything else under the sun..that's up to the individual, as it always has been.
I OWN ME YOU OWN YOU Need anymore be said?... Thought not.
Here is an example I just noticed today of what I posted last night about the pledge. How many Americans know this? Maybe 2 or 3 percent? Among school kids, it has to be less than 1 percent. No wonder why they make the kids do this in govt schools!
To answer your question Anon at 1:59....Bill Still. Though I will admit he's not been elected to anything, but his public stances are better than Paul's in many ways.
Don't get me wrong, I like Paul for the most part, but a few of his votes in the House have been a little on the statist side or a little too close to hypocrisy (in terms of voting for pork in his own state for example).
Northgunner first you claim to be an anarchist -which to my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong here) that you subscribe to no rules but them you unilaterally impose your own rules (I own me and you own you) and the go on to place an end on the discussion.
How interesting. You may detest collectivism but it sure appears that you subscribe to fascism....
Document worship? Nah, it's called idea acceptance. I DO agree with you own you and I own me. See, I don't claim no rules like you do. I understand that there MUST be some basic parameters, some in common and agreed to boundaries. Ironically, you recognize this, and adopt this as you claim to oppose it and reject it.
Blackstone understood that the only way things stay removed from chaos is when the rules - like you own you and I own me- are written down out in the open for all to see. THAT is the only way to enforce the very ownership you subscribe to.
Stateless society you say? So you oppose a free state then? You oppose boundaries, borders, yet you claim to establish a border around you and I and everyone else.
Self proclaimed anarchists are most often nothing if the kind. They are simply hypocrites who's own musings expose them as those who want to have their cake and eat it too.
As declared by honest men long ago, some things are indeed self evident and even though there is an endless supply of those who want to debate the meaning of "is", the actual "Is" remains as it has always been and forever will be. See,friend, there really is no such thing as anarchy - for the very first rule "that there are no rules" demonstrates the false premise right out of the gate.
Our Framers knew that ANY governance is inherently an evil but also that there can be no good without evil. Hence limited, defined authority governance was best case scenario - REALITY considered.
You are free to live in the made up world where anarchy is possible, I'll stick to living in actuality where I don't have to lie to myself trying to defend the indefensible and I don't expose myself as a hypocrite violating my own self proclaimed principals multiple times in one internet posting. See homeboy- the INSTANT you set the ownership border that YOU set, you ceded the point that our Founders and Framers got it right. That's what happens when you admit property rights exist and that ownership borders of a free state exist.
In order for your own self stated ownership boundaries to be respected, others must subscribe to the same boundary set. That's not collectivism homie. That is just mutual respect based in a square deal - equality before the eyes of the rules - the law! Imagine that - yer right back to ACTUALLY arguing just exactly what our founders did. Imagine that.
Lol@ fake anarchists who always think they are somehow reinventing the wheel - as if they are coming up with something "new ". Easily flayed, they are, by the sword of truth.
It does sound as though you have the heart of a Freeman, but it seems to me you are quite young (again correct me if I'm wrong) so I ask you honestly, what are you, maybe all of 22? 24 maybe?
And additionally, how did you feel about Ron Paul witnessing people trade tender with his likeness and do absolutely nothing about it? (Just askin')
Lol also in the general direction of "non aggression". That's just BULLSHIT. Attempt to harm my children and ill show ya justified aggression. That is some LIBERALtarian bullshit sneaking in right there that demonstrates part of the problem.
Anon at 8:24 - what votes? An FYI: that is a classic fallacy and myth that foxnews and talk radio types repeated: he never voted for any pork. That was one reason the GOP and ifs leadership hated him so much. He voted against the appropriations bills every year, but after the funding had been appropriated already, he would earmark spending. Earmarks add zero to the budget, and are only put in place after the amount of money for the fiscal year in spending has been determined.
Earmarks are roughly 1 to 2 percent of the budget every year, and it takes money away from other govt programs. Quite frankly, I wish a lot more earmarking had been done after the amount of money to be spent for the year to deprive the ATF, NSA, etc of money. If only the congress would do this in much higher levels, it would help starve the worst aspects of the beast. It is one of the few things congress can do these days that is still constitutional, so no wonder it isn't done.
As far as bill still, he is not in elected office, so it isn't exactly difficult to stick to certain views. But even with his views, I don't believe someone who is for fiat currency and in favor of the very legal tender laws Hayek wanted abolished could even be considered a libertarian honestly, but that word is certainly open to interpretation.
I think I'm going to have to cut off the comments here, since they all are now some sort of pissing contest involving "butt hurt" and "breast feeding." I had hoped for more light and less heat in the discussion.
41 comments:
And arguments between Repubs, Libertarians, etc, and anyone else not Demo/commie/collectivist is just what OPFOR wants, works tirelessly at, and gets, every day of the year. While we dither and argue and call each other names, the collectivists are acting and getting their agenda accomplished. We do their job for them, waiting for them to act, and then we react, and fight each other tooth and nail, while they blithely carry on, as you Mike, well know all this is in their playbook. All that is being pointed out in this article is that the collectivist agenda part of the plan regarding this is working, and working well. And of course, once again, no solution offered, and none taken. It's like watching the paint dry. In the end I believe what will unite us is that all of us who do not resist, who do not abjectly surrender, will meet on the wrong side of the barbed wire, awaiting our fate. And I think that Russian fella wrote something memorable about, " How we burned in the camps", that will prove both prophetic, and a condemnation. I'd rather be sewed up in a bag with a werewolf, and tossed in the river, than to see what's coming.
It's just a hit piece designed to help keep the Red Team/Blue Team false paradigm alive.
Pure bullshit.
Years ago, the loyalists feared the rise of a individual liberty based party that would threaten the locked arm strategy of control that democrats and republicans created to insulate us from our governance (all while claiming to be the conduits to it). In order to protect that power structure, they infected the Libertarian party so that it could be set up to be mocked easily. That created the meme that voting for a third party just elected democrats. Both parties love it.
Hilariously, the TEA party was born anyway. This because, though politicians refuse to just admit it, the American spirit of Freedom in Liberty is unbreakable. Regardless of their games, their will always be freemen who rise up against tyrants.
So why the hit piece now? Why the "starting" of " arguments? Well THATS the purpose! The powerful now FEAR that the small l libertarian mindset is turning people away from both establishment parties. They speak of the civil war in the Republican Party, while watching Democrats run from Obamacare Accountability. They need DIVISION as Americans seek unity and they must DESTROY any and all possible COMPETITION. COMMIES, are, after all, opposed to competition as the anti capitalists that they are.
The big L party has surpassed their ballot control measures. It has jumped all the hurdles and that's what they fear MOST.
What the big L party needs is the small l message. Most Americans, by far, are small l libertarians, in that, they want to do their own thing and be LEFT ALONE by gubmint. Party politicians FEAR that UNITY because their inflicted DIVISION called "campaigns " falls asunder in the face of that unity.
For instance - gayness ? I think its wrong BUT it's a matter of pursuit of happiness thus not a government issue. Guns? Some can think they are bad BUT it's a right so again, not a issue for government. Abortion? Same thing. "Drug war? Yup that too. Can't have people figuring out that power to jail you over a pot plant is the same power to jail you over a tomato plant! . Take ALL the staple issues that the corrupt parties run campaigns on away from then via unity around First Principals,as a matter NOT for government, and both parties are EXPOSED as the "used car salesman" LIARS that they are.
Nope, they MUST make sure that Americans stay divided along non government issues in order to avoid losing their ill gotten authority. They must destroy liberty itself in order to control the serfs.
So how do we respond? We refuse to descend into the petty arguments they want. We continue to educate our countrymen about the game party politicians play. We reject the "you are throwing your vote away" and we disregard ALL letters behind a candidates name as the MEANINGLESS label that it is. We vote FOR those who EARN it but NEVER "against " anyone.
Above all else, we tell the TRUTH, especially in the fave of those who try to demonize us when we do so. We call out the DIVIDERS - like the author of this trite drivel.
The founders and original framers warned us all about political factions and how they were hotbeds of corruption. WE SHOULD LISTEN to those warnings.
It means being able to actually critically think.... rationally...something hard core conservatives seem incapable or unwilling to do. "Potty trained at gun point" may be an accurate phrase for describing their inflexibility of thought, LOL.
The article flat out lies. No solutions are offered? Really? How about the FairTax? How about LFTR technology for clean, sustainable energy as policy? How about the idea of citizen soldiers based more on the founders ideals of standing armies which would help avoid going around the world encroaching on other nation's sovereignty? How about anything from Bill Still? How about realizing that it's not about illicit drugs as much as it is about determining who owns your body and can tell you what you can put in it....the state or you?
No, the problem is that the main stream Libertarian Party has been co-opted by people who do NOT hold libertarian principles...they are Republican light with dope smoking as a distraction. The author is right about that....and the last election with Gary Johnson, who was NOT in favor of smaller government and couldn't even manage to run a campaign that wasn't in debt. He was just a Republican trying to run on a different ticket since his party wouldn't elect him.
It is a problem, one that the enemies of this country use every chance they get. That said, What should one make of a party leadership that deliberately allows it's candidates to fail and refuses to support them, when the need is dire?
My thought would be that everything has been calculated to create the circumstances wherein only evil can win, or rather Marxists, which is in this case, the same thing.
Am I the only one who sees this?
Hunter has some valid points. The Libertarian (Party, in particular) brand has become a label slapped on Republican-Lite. At best.
But part of the problem with "prominent" libertarians advocating real libertarian views and and solutions is that "prominent" tends to be determine by the lamestream muddia with a vested interest in obfuscating real libertarianism. There are people working for what Hunter says he wants to see. But unless you read the right blogs and alternate (and... less-than-popular) news sites, and have the right contacts, you probably wouldn't you know it.
The problem with the Libertarian Party specifically is that it opted for publicity over principle. To be generous, I think most of them were trying to counter the problem in the above paragraph, but others (Root, Barr) were meely opportunists; little frogs chased out of the big pond trying to be big frogs in the little LP pond.
Groups like the FSP are doing what Hunter wants to see, but they get painted as a "gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized," even when they aren't. To get anything done at the legislative level, FSP members had to infiltrate the Dems and Reps, often going to some effort to hide that have any FSP affiliation at all. (There are a lot more FSP libertarians in the state house than most folks -- including the DEM and Rep bosses -- realize now.)
Another problem is that many of the people tying to do what Hunter wants gave up. We busted ass for years, only for ridicule and backstabbing by the LP. So, like the covert FSP porcupines, we work quietly without mentioning we're libertarians. But that robs us of a lot of capability for organized action.
I'm obviously in the wrong business if this is what passes for professional political commentary.
"They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy."
WHAT???? You mean the libertarians once upon a time did NOT want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy??? Where has this clown been for the last 35 years? And while he's at it, perhaps he can tell us all the wonderful things an interventionist f/p has done for us over the last hundred years.
"But as bad as McCain was (and still is), he was better than Barack Obama."
This is highly debateable. Even more important is that principle matters. When one votes for "the lesser of two evils" one is affirmatively voting for evil. What should a principled person do when presented with such a choice? Too often, we're told "Hold your nose". The libertarians are now telling the GOP "find us a candidate we can vote for with one hand."
"Thanks to Maher and his ilk, the term Libertarian does now come closer to what he thinks it is than it used to."
This is unalloyed BS. Every (small-L) libertarian I know laughs when they hear this. Libertarianism is what it has always been: a political sense that the government should be as small as possible and do as little as necessary. When does he think that changed?
"The Virginia gubernatorial race wasn't lost by Ken Cuccinelli. It was lost by the GOP establishment. The national party took their ball and went home early..."
Oh, so it WASN'T the Libertarians?? Tell me again what his point was.
"Well, this is going to start more than a few arguments."
Yep... more of the usual. But it is as pointless as the arguments between "conservatives" and "liberals." They just want different pieces of your butt. Every politician has a wonderful plan for your life and your property... trust them.
I don't need a label. And I don't need any politicians.
I have neither the time, nor the energy to argue with someone who takes a stand against liberty, no matter what the form. If, and when the time comes my answer will come 150 grains at a time. Until then my energies are better spent elsewhere.
Does this guy even know Libertarians? Or does he simply hang out with the ones inside the Beltway and exclaim "these guys are like anti-Liberartians!".
What did he expect to find in DC? Up here in NH we are flush with Libertarians and they wouldn't know what to do with those bozos.
I don't know any Libertarians who cheered when Obama won. I know of few who have much interest in drug policy as a primary issue beyond the positive benefits of ending the War on Drugs (which usually comes about through Police State discussions, not drugs). Never heard a one talk about hookers.
"Taking our ball and going home" is a pretty cynical way to describe reformed Neo-Cons, like myself, who realized the Republican Party is playing the Conservatives like a fiddle by splitting them six ways to Sunday against one or two liberals then watching as the Neo-Con lemmings line up behind the liberal who makes a few positive comments about guns or God. Its sickening.
We all know that the two Parties would be toast if one decent Libertarian took the debate stand and brought the conversation above a 6-th grade information level. Look at how Herman Cain energized the Conservatives by simply being able to string two coherent complex ideas together in a sentence.
Thanks for posting, its good to sample all the chatter. I think the guy needs to get out of the Asylum before he can make a judgement call on an entire movement.
I've always said that any sentence beginning, "All libertarians believe. . . " is guaranteed to be wrong on some level. There's no bright line to step across into "libertarian", it's a direction, not a destination.
It's easy to decry libertarian purism and intractability, God knows I do enough of it myself, and I are one. For the rest of you, doesn't that beam in your eye itch? I see the same behavior from SoCons, progressives, all over the spectrum. Remember the recent blogobloviator who called for boycotting the NSA March to protest the icky libertarians involved?
Yes, there are tribal libertarians who march around behind standard bearers like the Pauls and don't really think the policies through. There are libertarians who fit the "pot-smoking Republicans" label. Bill Maher is a libertarian for whatever value of "libertarian" he's using. It's a free country and nobody owns the label . . .
So screw the label, listen to the man. Think for yourself.
C'mon Mike. The non-aggression principle is pretty universal. If you cross it, whether it be against another person or their property, you can bet karma will be coming your way. It's called principles, and if you don't have any, then you're just like the commies for whom "them means justify the ends."
Now banking on getting libertarian politicians elected is kind of a pipe dreams. The best politicians are also some of the smarter and shrewder sociopaths among us. Those who get elected are the ones who can convince the most people that they are just like them, without alienating any of the other factions. In other words, lying through you teeth to get to the power that you really covet.
IMHO, our best bet is to get the Republicans to recognize that without us liberty minded folks, they can't win elections. Then, and maybe only then, can we force them to address the liberty issues
Several articles like this are appearing all at once.
Have the Koch brothers really worn out their welcome among the Republicans, or do they just need a little taking down? They were quite useful for a while, but they (or their affiliates) apparently went beyond bounds in NJ and now need to be brought to heel.
Things have been working EXACTLY as they are supposed to for quite some time here. Lots of money is spent on both "sides" to assure important investments will continue to be safe for their planned durations and that the right sorts of business will run smoothly and profitably. The last thing anyone (particularly anyone with important investments) needs is a group of people who actually believe some aspects of the propaganda going rogue and having an unplanned for effect.
With the proper spin, control mechanisms used to correct such things can also be used for infotainment and earn advertising dollars- A twofer!
Everything is a business model...
The infiltration and dilution of the limited government movement continues. I won't change my principles just because some jackass co-opts the label. (hint: this applies to III-per's too & classical liberals)
Freedom in economics & freedom in society. Those are principles the founders understood and argued over in detail. I love God and am Christian, but, forcing my morality on someone else is evil.
Likewise it is my solemn duty to resist such evil when others attempt to enforce their morality under the color of law and force if it does not involve actual damage to person or property.
I like your term 'Christian Libertarian'. I use it personally, although you probably wouldn't agree with me using it because of my denomination. Regardless, I see you as my brother in Christ & co-belligerent in the war against collectivist tyranny.
Peace,
FaradayShieldedHeadgearBrigade
Libertarianism: "As long as I'm minding my own business, leave me the hell alone".
What's wrong with that?
"As opposed to republicans who want to use illegal drugs, bang prostitutes, and blow Obama."
Some guy pens an opinion piece about Libertarians and then you go trying to make it about the Speaker of the House...
I think Ron Paul was the best organized, most cogent Libertarian in recent history. Before the election, his web pages and personal appearances explained the problems he observed, and his proposed solutions for them. They made sense to me. He was not bought, owed nothing to big money, big media, or big labor. He actually worked for a living and did not suck from the public teat for 25 years or engage in various financial frauds. He did not tell a percentage of Americans that they were without value. Unfortunately, his ideas did not reach the average American, and we ended up with the current collectivist in the white house. His opponent is presumably still busy closing companies and ending Americans' jobs. If libertarians have at least reached spoiler status in elections, that is some improvement on the past. Perhaps people are starting to listen. The way to go in this country is small and local. I certainly do not have all the answers, but I will keep voting for libertarian candidates as long as there are decent ones. The only extremism I can stand is in the defense of the constitution. True libertarians will always follow whomever offers the most freedom. What you believe in your heart is more important than a label someone tries to hang on you.
This "problem" with Libertarians article is about as relevant as a no smoking sign on the Hindenburg. More Praxis articles please.
When I have had enough courage and/or disgust to vote for Libertarians in the past, my rationale was that if the GOP saw Republican candidates losing because of "spoiler" Libertarian candidates, the GOP would eventually be dragged, kicking and screaming to conservative/liberty principles.
What we didm't think was that the "establishment" GOP would RATHER lose elections to Democrats as long as the right "republicans" are allowed to stay in office, singing harmony for their allies on the left.
The corruption is systemic.
Any conjecture that there is still a peaceful political solution, is delusional.
A tsunami of butt-hurt has just devastated the shores of Sipsey...
If Ron Paul weren't so damn goofy, libertarianism would be making better inroads than it is.
Some recommended if not required reading:
1. "The Libertarian Manifesto" by Murray Rothbard
2. "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin
Being a libertarian is more than smoking dope and banging hookers. Being a libertarian is not even about dope or hookers. Being a libertarian is believing that much if not most of what the U S Government seeks to gets it's nose into is none of the government's damn business, including, but not in any way limited to, such red herring objections as being able to decide what to ingest, smoke or drink and/or what if any monetary transactions may be associated with a consensual sexual act between adults.
There's an old cliché about the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. It says that a Liberal want's to decide where you send your kids to school and what they will be taught there, but is willing to let you read anything you want. However a Conservative wants to control what you read but leave your kids upbringing in your hands. Note that both want to control a critical aspect of your life, they just differ in what areas they want to control. The are both Statists. And by definition, Statists cannot be Libertarians.
There's far more to it than we can cover here. Read the books.
It's better to be attacked than ignored. This is a step up for libertarians.
"They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy."
Um, is there something wrong with not throwing people in cages for smoking a plant, an act that is no one else's business? Is there something wrong with letting other people trade for whatever they please, harming nobody else? Is there something wrong with not warring on people in other countries who are not harming us? Funny, I thought L's were always for those things. I guess consistency bothers some people.
The real problem with libertarians is that they soon morph into anarchists and will have nothing to do with the political process at all. If that is a problem. Anyway we eventually all become apostates from the government religion. Nonbelievers in the established American religion.
Anon @ 4:30 - why do you say Ron Paul is "goofy?" Please don't tell me you are basing this on what the mainstream media says, or what some neo con clowns on talk radio say. Paul has consistently been talking about the police state, the federal reserve, gun rights, etc decades before the same talk radio and foxnews types jumped on the bandwagon. I still remember in 08 the same idiots who constantly talk about the fed or the NSA stuff now like beck or rush bashing Ron Paul and saying he was crazy and a nut for the views they now hold. If you are basing it on him not being some sort of used car talking salesman like all other national politicians, that is one of the reasons he is so extremely popular among the under 30 crowd who don't expect to be bullshitted like older people do.
Besides, Ron Paul is literally the only person I have seen who has converted young people from being anti gun to being pro gun in my lifetime, among many other liberty related issues.
Ps. While it has greatly deviated from its origins, do you want to guess where the tea party started?
And we are such an anti libertarian society not bc of some politician, but because of the govt school system that teaches outright nonsense and lies. That is why the home schooling movement is so huge, and the only way we will ever get back to a level playing field and not have a nation full of idiots. The pledge of allegiance, for instance, is usually mandatory in govt schools, but how many are even aware that it was written by a socialist as a way to brainwash kids that states can never secede and we must always bow down to the central govt? And that nullification was used for racist purposes - ignoring that Wisconsin nullified the fugitive slave act. Or how many even know what nullification is, and how the primary authors of the Declaration of Independence and the constitution fully endorsed nullifying unjust federal laws? Heck, how many people even know that Obama has murdered us citizens with drone strikes without charge or trial?
It took the progressives decades of gradual victories to be in the position we are in now, so it is going to take a few generations of home schooling to change that.
A few of the commentators here should go and fully read the article.
It is obvious from your posts that some did not read more than the headline here.
Sounds to me like oughtsix is awfully butt-hurt about being so butt-hurt - a case of compound butt-hurt, as it were.
That's a powerful lot of butt-hurt for any man to be burdened with. I'm privately rooting for ya to pull through it little buddy. *sniff sniff*
ANONY @ 10:08 asks: "why do you say Ron Paul is goofy?"
Gosh I don't know... perhaps it's the combined comical effect of his personality and face?
So Anon at 2:35AM prefers a good looking, morally bankrupt, unprincipled snake to someone who looks "goofy".
Go back to watching American Idol and TMZ, you dolt. If appearance is all that matters....Congrats, you fit right in with the rest of the dumb ass Amerikan populace.
PS. I'm not a huge Ron or Rand Paul fan....there are far more consistent libertarians out there, but they are heads and shoulders over most of what we keep sending to the hill.
The level of moral corruption that exists in our country today eliminates libertarianism or capitalism. The next logical stop is totalitarianism. God help us.
The difference between republocrats and demopublicans on the one hand, and Libertarians on the other is principles. Libertarians have them, and they all agree with the Zero-aggression principle, or they aren't Libertarians, as much as they might claim otherwise.
What enumerated power is employed to make "drugs " "illegal"? The Constitution itself had to be amended to provide government of republican form the authority to declare alcohol "illegal" and this prohibit it. Amendment. 18 is a clear admission that government DID NOT HAVE such authority. This newfound power was REPEALED in its entirety - and all that authority with it.
Americans have been tricked into a "there outa be a law" mentality produced by playing on emotions that pit one American against another. Politicians have played on the " should we or shouldn't we " level - intentionally ignoring the "can we or can't we (decided by constitutional limitations) level.
Notice how anti liberty and fake liberty supporters all try to argue on the "should - shouldn't" level absent any discussion about actual government BASE authority ? They will tout. " illegal" as if that term is literally unquestionable.
If you smoke crack you are a fool. If you have a hooker give ya a bill Clinton yer nasty. If you abort a baby you are terminating a pregnancy. If you gamble away your paycheck. ( with dice or Wall Street brokers) you are an idiot. The examples abound but one thing remains a constant - NONE OF IT is governments business. Government was neither created nor empowered to micromanage any of these decisions or punish-reward them. It was created to secure the blessings of liberty - protect the CHOICE of each individual.
Whether those, or even guns, the decision itself is for each individual to make for themselves. For the better or for the worse ( as subjective as that is) government is tasked with staying out of it - empowered only to enforce the terms of mutually agreed to contracts.
Those who want to talk about drugs and hookers do so because they want to avoid dealing with the PURPOSE of government that is both declared and constituted.
We do not need a new party or a reformation if an existing party. What we require is a population that has the courage to address the BASICS, the FUNDAMENTALS, of declared and constituted governance. We must oust politicians, bent on obfuscation, replacing them with STATESMEN dedicated to holding government to within its scripted boundaries.
It really IS that simple.
@ anony 8:15AM
EPIC display of butt-hurt.
I hereby nominate you for induction into the Butt-Hurt Hall Of Fame.
Well done sir, well done.
Anonymous at 2:35 - so what you are saying is you just repeat verbatim what the same media types who want all guns banned have to say about the only real threat to the dc establishment? The same media types who call ALL gun owners goofy and crazy bc you don't like his face or his personality?
You are a perfect example of govt school and media indoctrination making the us the dumbest country in the world. Thomas jefferson was an awful public speaker, and inhave no doubt you would be saying thr same about him if he were alive today with how feeble your thinking skills are. Thank you for proving my point that home schooling is our only option, we can't win with people like you making up the masses.
Anon @ 8:15 - glad to see someone else notice the stupidity of caring about looks. I have been a hardcore libertarian for over a decade and am curious as to who at the national level has been more consistent in your eyes as a libertarian than Ron? Just curious, not attacking at all. I certainly agree about rand though, and think he is going to be like Reagan and end up screwing us over while pretending to be liberty minded. He sure aint his dad!
Paul X said:
"The real problem with libertarians is that they soon morph into anarchists and will have nothing to do with the political process at all. If that is a problem. Anyway we eventually all become apostates from the government religion. Nonbelievers in the established American religion."
I am in full agreement with Paul on this. This harping & bitching about "libertarians" is just a sign that the collectivists are both scared and pissed that the sheep are finally waking up and fleeing the sheep pen (or an Indian "going off the res").
As more people clear the indoctrinated political pablum from between their ears and start examining "authority/gov" critically and logically (and yes, this includes "parchment worship" as regards the constitution, read "Hologram Of Liberty" by Kenneth Royce) they come to the realization that neither gov or authority exist..no more than santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth fairy.
Don't take my word for it; read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose and view the numerous videos he and his wife Tessa have put up on YouTube on the reality of Anarchy/Voluntarism and stateless socities.
I started my journey as a small "l" libertarian, I know proudly call myself an anarchist. All that means is that I follow the Zero Aggression Principle, I own myself and do not own anyone else, and as such I will never have anything to do with any collectivist political activity which is nothing more than a thinly disguised mechanism for coercion, extortion, theft/fraud, and outright murder.
Libertarianism is philosophically a very good place for lovers of freedom to begin. It serves it's purpose if the individual matures from it to being an anarchist as that is the final and proper evolution personally/philosophically.
As for the issues of drugs, prostitutes, guns and everything else under the sun..that's up to the individual, as it always has been.
I OWN ME
YOU OWN YOU
Need anymore be said?...
Thought not.
Yours In Liberty!
Northgunner III
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/woods-to-tea-partiers-pledge-of-allegiance-is-anti-american/
Here is an example I just noticed today of what I posted last night about the pledge. How many Americans know this? Maybe 2 or 3 percent? Among school kids, it has to be less than 1 percent. No wonder why they make the kids do this in govt schools!
To answer your question Anon at 1:59....Bill Still. Though I will admit he's not been elected to anything, but his public stances are better than Paul's in many ways.
Don't get me wrong, I like Paul for the most part, but a few of his votes in the House have been a little on the statist side or a little too close to hypocrisy (in terms of voting for pork in his own state for example).
Northgunner first you claim to be an anarchist -which to my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong here) that you subscribe to no rules but them you unilaterally impose your own rules (I own me and you own you) and the go on to place an end on the discussion.
How interesting. You may detest collectivism but it sure appears that you subscribe to fascism....
Document worship? Nah, it's called idea acceptance. I DO agree with you own you and I own me. See, I don't claim no rules like you do. I understand that there MUST be some basic parameters, some in common and agreed to boundaries. Ironically, you recognize this, and adopt this as you claim to oppose it and reject it.
Blackstone understood that the only way things stay removed from chaos is when the rules - like you own you and I own me- are written down out in the open for all to see. THAT is the only way to enforce the very ownership you subscribe to.
Stateless society you say? So you oppose a free state then? You oppose boundaries, borders, yet you claim to establish a border around you and I and everyone else.
Self proclaimed anarchists are most often nothing if the kind. They are simply hypocrites who's own musings expose them as those who want to have their cake and eat it too.
As declared by honest men long ago, some things are indeed self evident and even though there is an endless supply of those who want to debate the meaning of "is", the actual
"Is" remains as it has always been and forever will be. See,friend, there really is no such thing as anarchy - for the very first rule "that there are no rules" demonstrates the false premise right out of the gate.
Our Framers knew that ANY governance is inherently an evil but also that there can be no good without evil. Hence limited, defined authority governance was best case scenario - REALITY considered.
You are free to live in the made up world where anarchy is possible, I'll stick to living in actuality where I don't have to lie to myself trying to defend the indefensible and I don't expose myself as a hypocrite violating my own self proclaimed principals multiple times in one internet posting. See homeboy- the INSTANT you set the ownership border that YOU set, you ceded the point that our Founders and Framers got it right. That's what happens when you admit property rights exist and that ownership borders of a free state exist.
In order for your own self stated ownership boundaries to be respected, others must subscribe to the same boundary set. That's not collectivism homie. That is just mutual respect based in a square deal - equality before the eyes of the rules - the law! Imagine that - yer right back to ACTUALLY arguing just exactly what our founders did. Imagine that.
Lol@ fake anarchists who always think they are somehow reinventing the wheel - as if they are coming up with something "new ". Easily flayed, they are, by the sword of truth.
It does sound as though you have the heart of a Freeman, but it seems to me you are quite young (again correct me if I'm wrong) so I ask you honestly, what are you, maybe all of 22? 24 maybe?
And additionally, how did you feel about Ron Paul witnessing people trade tender with his likeness and do absolutely nothing about it? (Just askin')
Lol also in the general direction of "non aggression". That's just BULLSHIT. Attempt to harm my children and ill show ya justified aggression. That is some LIBERALtarian bullshit sneaking in right there that demonstrates part of the problem.
Anon at 8:24 - what votes? An FYI: that is a classic fallacy and myth that foxnews and talk radio types repeated: he never voted for any pork. That was one reason the GOP and ifs leadership hated him so much. He voted against the appropriations bills every year, but after the funding had been appropriated already, he would earmark spending. Earmarks add zero to the budget, and are only put in place after the amount of money for the fiscal year in spending has been determined.
Earmarks are roughly 1 to 2 percent of the budget every year, and it takes money away from other govt programs. Quite frankly, I wish a lot more earmarking had been done after the amount of money to be spent for the year to deprive the ATF, NSA, etc of money. If only the congress would do this in much higher levels, it would help starve the worst aspects of the beast. It is one of the few things congress can do these days that is still constitutional, so no wonder it isn't done.
As far as bill still, he is not in elected office, so it isn't exactly difficult to stick to certain views. But even with his views, I don't believe someone who is for fiat currency and in favor of the very legal tender laws Hayek wanted abolished could even be considered a libertarian honestly, but that word is certainly open to interpretation.
I think I'm going to have to cut off the comments here, since they all are now some sort of pissing contest involving "butt hurt" and "breast feeding." I had hoped for more light and less heat in the discussion.
Post a Comment