Liberty: Not a Left Right Issue

[bobbyw24]

By John Stevens
RLCNEF Chairman

It has been interesting to witness the confusion amongst conventional politicos as groups like The Campaign for Liberty and The Republican Liberty Caucus begin to exert more and more influence over today’s political discourse. Members of these groups are fighting for issues and taking positions that don’t seem to fit neatly into the traditional left or right boxes. I recall hearing a long time Republican Party loyalist accuse one of these activists of being a “left-wing Obama supporter” because they questioned the GOP’s support of the Patriot Act. On another occasion I witnessed this same activist being mocked as a “right-wing extremist” by a long time member of the Democratic Party for suggesting that the federal government should have no involvement in the issue of health care. How can the same political activist be both “left wing” and “right wing”?

http://www.rlcnef.org/wp-content/themes/freshnews/freshnews/thumb.php?src=http://www.rlcnef.org/wp-content/woo_custom/23-dont_tread_on_me.gif&h=195&w=540&zc=1&q=90

It seems that in 2009 politics, the “left” or “right” label is determined by where you stand on issues in relation to where the Republican and Democratic Parties stand on those issues. Oppose the Patriot Act, question the constitutionality of the war in Iraq or oppose government involvement in the issue of gay marriage and you will find yourself on the wrong side of the GOP and therefore labeled a “leftist”. However, oppose a federal health care bill, support the elimination of the federal Department of Education or speak out against the progressive income tax and you will be at odds with the Democratic Party and likely lumped in with the “right wing extremists”. The problem with this approach to politics is that rarely is the question asked why the parties hold their positions on various issues. And even rarer is an actual discussion or debate on the reasons for holding those positions.

Continue

http://www.rlcnef.org/liberty-not-a-left-right-issue/

[stu2002]

John is a good man. Thanks for posting

[dannno]

This is an excellent article.

[bobbyw24]

js4pat

Spread it around and let John know that you like it

[Son of Detroit]

Link seems to be down?

[bobbyw24]

Thanks for the heads up--I just emailed the web master of the site

[Mahkato]

Link seems to be down?

From the google cache (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:IzvG1CaogpUJ:www.rlcnef.org/liberty-not-a-left-right-issue/+http://www.rlcnef.org/liberty-not-a-left-right-issue/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1):


It has been interesting to witness the confusion amongst conventional politicos as groups like The Campaign for Liberty and The Republican Liberty Caucus begin to exert more and more influence over today’s political discourse. Members of these groups are fighting for issues and taking positions that don’t seem to fit neatly into the traditional left or right boxes. I recall hearing a long time Republican Party loyalist accuse one of these activists of being a “left-wing Obama supporter” because they questioned the GOP’s support of the Patriot Act. On another occasion I witnessed this same activist being mocked as a “right-wing extremist” by a long time member of the Democratic Party for suggesting that the federal government should have no involvement in the issue of health care. How can the same political activist be both “left wing” and “right wing”?

It seems that in 2009 politics, the “left” or “right” label is determined by where you stand on issues in relation to where the Republican and Democratic Parties stand on those issues. Oppose the Patriot Act, question the constitutionality of the war in Iraq or oppose government involvement in the issue of gay marriage and you will find yourself on the wrong side of the GOP and therefore labeled a “leftist”. However, oppose a federal health care bill, support the elimination of the federal Department of Education or speak out against the progressive income tax and you will be at odds with the Democratic Party and likely lumped in with the “right wing extremists”. The problem with this approach to politics is that rarely is the question asked why the parties hold their positions on various issues. And even rarer is an actual discussion or debate on the reasons for holding those positions.

Members of groups promoting liberty do not fit into the conventional Left/Right paradigm. When an issue is presented to a liberty activist, the first question is not where does my party stand on this issue, but rather what position protects the freedom and liberty of the individual. In looking at the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Gay Marriage, Health Care, Education and Taxes, one must first have a clear understanding of individual rights, where they come from and the proper role of government. The Declaration of Independence clearly spells out the fact that our rights come not from man but from our Creator. And the United States Constitution clearly spells out what authority the federal government has in relation to those rights. It is from these two documents that all political issues should be discussed, debated and acted upon.

Does the federal government ever have the authority to violate the right of an individual to be secure in their person and possessions from search and seizure without probable cause? The answer is no and therefore the liberty position on the Patriot Act is to oppose it.

Does the Constitution give the Legislative Branch of the federal government the ability to transfer its authority to Declare War to the Executive Branch? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on the Iraq War has been to oppose it.

Is the federal government given any authority by the constitution to define or regulate the institution of marriage? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on the issue of any gay marriage regulation (pro or con) is to oppose it.

Is the federal government given any authority by the constitution to impose laws or to regulate the delivery of health care? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on federal health care legislation is to oppose it.

Is the federal government given any authority by the constitution to impose laws or to regulate education? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on funding a federal department of education is to oppose it.

Does government taxing the fruits of one’s labor threaten the freedom and liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on income taxes is to oppose them.

These concepts are pretty simple for those who get involved in politics for the purpose of ensuring that government protects the liberty of the individual. To those who complicate politics by focusing on things like party loyalty, personal ambition or political personalities, understanding exactly what it is you stand for can be a little more difficult. When you are not looking at issues based on a fundamental set of principles you will often times open yourself up to weak arguments or even worse, hypocrisy.

Understanding liberty and applying it to all political issues is a liberating and empowering experience. You no longer have to feel uncomfortable when asked your position on an issue because you will no longer have to worry about making the party line fit with your own personal logic. You won’t have to defend the inconsistencies coming from party “leaders” or political personalities. In essence “The truth sets you free”.

Yes a good understanding of the concept of liberty will change your scale from one measuring Left vs Right to one which measures Freedom vs Tyranny. And that is the only measurement that should matter in the fight for liberty.

John Stevens
RLCNEF Chairman

[bobbyw24]

Webmaster said: (BTW web master is RPF member Soft Spoken Storm)

Yeah... the host has had more traffic than they expected lately and some servers have been hit, including the one our site's on. Not that great since I also have other key stuff on that server...

[Mahkato]

Link seems to be working again now.

[nobody's_hero]

I got goosebumps.

[cheapseats]

By John Stevens
RLCNEF Chairman

It has been interesting to witness the confusion amongst conventional politicos as groups like The Campaign for Liberty and The Republican Liberty Caucus begin to exert more and more influence over today’s political discourse. Members of these groups are fighting for issues and taking positions that don’t seem to fit neatly into the traditional left or right boxes. I recall hearing a long time Republican Party loyalist accuse one of these activists of being a “left-wing Obama supporter” because they questioned the GOP’s support of the Patriot Act. On another occasion I witnessed this same activist being mocked as a “right-wing extremist” by a long time member of the Democratic Party for suggesting that the federal government should have no involvement in the issue of health care. How can the same political activist be both “left wing” and “right wing”?

http://www.rlcnef.org/wp-content/themes/freshnews/freshnews/thumb.php?src=http://www.rlcnef.org/wp-content/woo_custom/23-dont_tread_on_me.gif&h=195&w=540&zc=1&q=90

It seems that in 2009 politics, the “left” or “right” label is determined by where you stand on issues in relation to where the Republican and Democratic Parties stand on those issues. Oppose the Patriot Act, question the constitutionality of the war in Iraq or oppose government involvement in the issue of gay marriage and you will find yourself on the wrong side of the GOP and therefore labeled a “leftist”. However, oppose a federal health care bill, support the elimination of the federal Department of Education or speak out against the progressive income tax and you will be at odds with the Democratic Party and likely lumped in with the “right wing extremists”. The problem with this approach to politics is that rarely is the question asked why the parties hold their positions on various issues. And even rarer is an actual discussion or debate on the reasons for holding those positions.

Continue

http://www.rlcnef.org/liberty-not-a-left-right-issue/


Hear HERE.

[cheapseats]

THIS is how perverse shit is...

I am arguing the case of NO ONE BUT PAUL people . . . where ARE they, by the way?

Have they thrown in the towel? Are "we" playing now for REPUBLICAN SEATS IN CONGRESS rather than a Ron Paul Presidency? Only say the word.

Me, I am DECIDEDLY Soft Support. MY life will NOT be very differently impacted outta the three, but for this: Jefferson State is MUCH smoother sailing with Ron Paul than with the others. But Jefferson State is DOABLE under any of them, if the people have the will. If there is not popular will, who am I to bust my ass trying to cram UNWANTED changes down throats? (Unless they are lying/cheating/stealing, negatively impacting me and, as it happens, my Countrymen and my actual COUNTRY'S street cred. Not "just" Congress is gettin' a bad name, AMERICA is gettin' a bad name.)

That is why I ask people about plans for AFTER the election, when SOMEONE will be crowned. It took money, sure, but it took a LOT of time and miles to find a place wherein THAT WHICH I CANNOT CONTROL impacts me least. I am NATURALLY self-interested. Survival of the fittest.

Speaking of, I have an entrepreneurial opportunity for one person with...wait, lemme go find that thread..."Web Dev, Designer, Promotion and Application Support" SKILLZ . . . or a LIFE SITUATION for one Baby Boomer, still with complementary SKILLZ, who has HAD IT with politics after this election and is what people proclaim too casually: READY, WILLING AND ABLE to do something ELSE.

Or not something else. I am not OPPOSED to sticking with the dragon-slaying...I AM ready, willing and able. It would surely be more fun AND more productive with a Partner, but I am also willing to JUST SAY NO. It's a big deal. I CANNOT "simply" give up politics, and chill with someone who never took up the Cause. Make sense?

ALSO speaking of carving out a SANE PLACE, I gotta get on the road before long and I emphatically do NOT want it to be inferred that I concede defeat on the REPUBLICAN v. INDEPENDENT debate.

This is still BEFORE the election . . . SEVEN MONTHS before. A lot can happen in 7 months. A lot can be MADE to happen in 7 months.

It is STUPEFYING to me that, as Liberty Lovers of several stripes struggle to scrape together enough common ground to deliver AN UPSET in November, equaler-than-other-posters Republicans "lay down the law" that, since everything is hopelessly fucked up, everyone should just VOTE REPUBLICAN ACROSS THE BOARD. That way, at least a buncha THEIR people get elected.

Any recovering Alcoholics/Addicts in the audience? That would be the infamous DIRECTOR, whose show would come off swell if only everyone would do exactly as he says.

Yeah okay, no doubt, the OBVIOUS solution to the dilemma is to "just" handle it YOUR way. Why didn't I think of that?

YES I KNOW Ron Paul decided to cling to the Party Machine and the Broken System. I MADE THE SAME ARGUMENTS THEN.

I lost.

Now Ron Paul is losing.

Some IMPROVISATION is in order.

STAY THE COURSE, STAY THE COURSE . . . why does that sound so FAMILIAR?

It IS possible to run more than one game at once. THEY DO.

It IS possible to overcome ANY "system" bullshit, with enough people in the street.

THEY HAD THESE SAME ARGUMENTS LEADING UP TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

I don't WRITE the books. I just READ 'em.

#WinstonChurchill: An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.

[cheapseats]

Baby Boomers will recall Colombo . . . AND ANOTHER THING.


all you are is negative nancy. so i can only assume your trying to be an ass now! grow some balls and get involved locally in the dnc or gop or run for office yourself. go vote 3rd party for all i care but bottom line is ron paul republicans are making the real change while your complaining about the gop. indy means nothing unless you get involved and make the change thru the 2 party system! you ignore ron paul and his message.



you are worse actually. we are making change while you bitch that change is not coming fast enough for you. what is your solution joining newt on the moon? bottom line is change is happening and has happened at the state level. I am talking the constitution here not resolutions. I am talking majority delegates. That is the change!



THIS



NOT doing what YOU say I should do is NOT the same thing as doing nothing.

Doing what you tell me to do, WHEN I BELIEVE YOU ARE WRONG, how is that different from doing what Government tells me to do when I believe "it" is wrong?

'Cuz you KNOW BETTER what's best for everyone, riiiight?

[cheapseats]

WHY OH WHY WOULD THEY FALL FOR "WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM" AGAIN?
WHY DO PEOPLE WHO CALL PEOPLE SHEEPLE MARGINALIZE INDEPENDENTS?