Why do the Paranoid in this movement want to march backwards?

[Matthew Zak]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

[DjLoTi]

some....more then others. lol

[Anti Federalist]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Because some of us are sick of "compromise".

When you do this for more than 25 years, like I have, it becomes very clear that 98.5 percent quickly becomes 80 percent that becomes 60 percent that becomes 30 percent that becomes nothing.

Feet will be held to the fire, consequences be damned.

[Rancher]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?


Leadership is missing.

[DjLoTi]

You also got to remember, there are a few people with a few thousand posts that just keep fighting and fighting and fighting for their 'perfection'. It makes it harder for the rest of us who just want to move in the right direction the best possible way with the best we have.

I mean, jesus isn't running for congress any time soon, so for now we have to accept the imperfect human beings.

but it's important for us not to allow the dissenters to undermine us or frustrate us. We just have to keep moving forward...

[cbc58]

you can still be principaled and achieve your goals. i think the "our way or the highway" approach is the reason this movement doesn't get anywhere... and why many people choose not to support it. it's not this movement that is waking people up - it's the direct impact on their wallets... which makes them question things and seek out information.

you can not force people into your frame of mind... they have to get there by themselves.

[SelfTaught]

I mean, jesus isn't running for congress any time soon, so for now we have to accept the imperfect human beings.


If Jesus ran for Congress, some people on this forum would label him a neocon.

[Travlyr]

We need leadership to focus on what is really wrong.

It seems to me that the biggest obstacle we have is that fascist cartel called: The Federal Reserve.

Who besides Ron Paul is saying, "End The Fed"?

[RevolutionSD]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Well, a good topic for debate for sure.

The word "libertarian" has been completely bastardized in the media and around here. Ron Paul was a libertarian in that he wanted to end most federal agencies, end the war on terror, bring all troops home, end the fed, end the income tax and replace it with nothing, etc. Now, suddenly we're okay with "a little interventionism", replacing the income tax with another tax, tweaking the fed instead of ending it, and fighting terror instead of looking at causes.

Liberty means I can do what I want as a free person, as long as I am not harming others.

Liberty does not mean the government can violate my property rights for whatever it thinks is good for me.

Huge difference. Compromising on this principle will compromise the movement completely, much more than not supporting this or that candidate.

[RevolutionSD]

If Jesus ran for Congress, some people on this forum would label him a neocon.

If he supported wars and taxes I don't care what he calls himself, I would never support him.

[DjLoTi]

If he supported wars and taxes I don't care what he calls himself, I would never support him.

We're talking about the Jesus jesus. And since he's against killing and stealing, I don't think he'd support war or taxes.

Now I understand and agree with you that we shouldn't waiver on our principals, like little taxes here and there even though they're smaller then the current status quo. But we need to be flexible and reasonable when communicating to people. And I know libertarians are for liberty, but when I hear libertarian part of me cringes. Not that I have anything against them, but I just hate labels. Even though I label myself a republican, I consider it more of an adjective then a noun.

We SHOULD just be people, Americans, doing the right thing. Libertarian, republican, socialist, anarchist, I mean, I don't care as long as the ideas are right and good. As long as the ideas are right and good, anybody can support right and good.

People have different ideas on what's right and what's bad. Unfortunately nearly everybody isn't going to get everything they want, and is going to end up with something they might disagree with, one way or the other.

One thing we can agree on, is that our country is headed in the wrong direction. We need to get the country back on track. And if it can't be 100% all the way perfect back on track, I'd rather it be 10% right on track then 90% backwards like our current democratic congress is doing.

Sometimes 10% right isn't good enough, even if it's currently 110% wrong. So those people just fight, fight, fight. Not everyone can keep trying to do as much as they can when other people are telling them they're not doing enough/are not good enough. We need to support each other and our overall goal. Otherwise, we'll just implode like we did in 2008

[cheapseats]

...i think the "our way or the highway" approach is the reason this movement doesn't get anywhere... and why many people choose not to support it.

THAT is bankable.




it's not this movement that is waking people up - it's the direct impact on their wallets... which makes them question things and seek out information.

THAT, and the alarming ratcheting up of nosey authoritarianism -- Gladys Kravitz with Uncle Sam's heavy hand.




you can not force people into your frame of mind... they have to get there by themselves.

"A man convinced against his will if of the same opinion still."

[CCTelander]

Because some of us are sick of "compromise".

When you do this for more than 25 years, like I have, it becomes very clear that 98.5 percent quickly becomes 80 percent that becomes 60 percent that becomes 30 percent that becomes nothing.

Feet will be held to the fire, consequences be damned.

I've been actively involved for 35+ years now, and I can't even estimate how many times I've seen exactly this happen.

The nature of politics is compromise. It's almost always a situation where you have to give a little to get a little. Plus, unless the individual politician is a flat out expert on every issue, they wind up unknowingly giving in areas where they're ignorant of the potential danger. As AF said, over time, and it usually doesn't take all that long, that 98.5% drops to something totally unacceptable.

When all is said and done, the result has ALWAYS been bigger more intrusive government at all levels and less freedom.

The ONLY way to prevent this inevitable slide (if it's possible at all) is to go in with 100% dedication to "pure" liberty and never give an inch. It's the EXTREMELY rare individual that can hold to principles that steadfastly, and almost no politician starts at 100%.

On top of that, even "good" guys who do manage to stick to their principles wind up doing significant harm, while thinking they're doing good. I personally know a guy that ran for a local position as a libertarian and won. He started out between 80% and 90% IMO. He's a "good" guy. But, after having secured office he's wound up doing a LOT of things that are flat out anti-liberty. People are seldom aware of the real harm that can come from trying to do "good."

Ultimately, if you don't demand perfection, you're likely not to even get good.

[cbc58]

The ONLY way to prevent this inevitable slide (if it's possible at all) is to go in with 100% dedication to "pure" liberty and never give an inch.

First you have to get them in there...

I have never understood how people can get elected on the platform and promise of change and reform.. only to go in and within 6 or so months totally conform to the system. It's like they get brainwashed or just give up.

[__27__]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

I assume you voted for John McCain, right?

[LDA]

The debate has turned to "libertarianism versus anarchism." The anarchists fail to understand that in absense of government, government will arise. Most libertarians hold that some sort of government is necessary to protect individual rights. The anarchists, by definition, demand ideological purity. They demand that there be no government, and anyone that says otherwise is in direct opposition to their position. They imagine a "free market" system in which justice/defense companies would protect rights. Of course, in that situation, those companies would be the government.

There will always be government. We have to have a constitution and an armed population to relentlessly beat it into submission. Multiple governments won't work; it must be capable of protecting from imperialistic, foreign invaders.

[RevolutionSD]

The debate has turned to "libertarianism versus anarchism." The anarchists fail to understand that in absense of government, government will arise. Most libertarians hold that some sort of government is necessary to protect individual rights. The anarchists, by definition, demand ideological purity. They demand that there be no government, and anyone that says otherwise is in direct opposition to their position. They imagine a "free market" system in which justice/defense companies would protect rights. Of course, in that situation, those companies would be the government.

There will always be government. We have to have a constitution and an armed population to relentlessly beat it into submission. Multiple governments won't work; it must be capable of protecting from imperialistic, foreign invaders.

Where in history has government ever protected individual rights, particularly in modern history? We have to go back to first principles. This organization claims to protect you but does so first by violating your property rights.

It's just like the mob offering "protection money", by forcing you to pay at gunpoint. You don't get protection from government, you get threats of violence.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The debate has turned to "libertarianism versus anarchism." The anarchists fail to understand that in absense of government, government will arise. Most libertarians hold that some sort of government is necessary to protect individual rights. The anarchists, by definition, demand ideological purity. They demand that there be no government, and anyone that says otherwise is in direct opposition to their position. They imagine a "free market" system in which justice/defense companies would protect rights. Of course, in that situation, those companies would be the government.

There will always be government. We have to have a constitution and an armed population to relentlessly beat it into submission. Multiple governments won't work; it must be capable of protecting from imperialistic, foreign invaders.

You do realize Anarchists---- Voluntaryists, have no problem with Government right? We want a STATEless society. A State and a Government are two completely seperate entities.

[LDA]

The government has protected individual rights many times. Everytime the government captures a thief and returns the stolen goods to the rightful owner, they have protected someone's individual rights.

The point you're making is that any tax is a violation of rights, so any action by the government that uses that tax money is also a violation. If you want your rights to be protected, it has to be paid for. It cannot and will not be done for free. Perhaps you advocate a society where no one is protected, and everyone is responsible for their own protection. Any that case, any talk of rights is pretty useless, because no one will be protected from anything unless they themselves can protect against it.


You do realize Anarchists---- Voluntaryists, have no problem with Government right? We want a STATEless society. A State and a Government are two completely seperate entities.

Okay. And it will be necessary to cede some autonomy to such an entity. Without a state, we just get taken over by other states.

[MelissaWV]

Q. Why do the Paranoid in this movement want to march backwards?

A. So they can always look out behind them?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The government has protected individual rights many times. Everytime the government captures a thief and returns the stolen goods to the rightful owner, they have protected someone's individual rights.

The point you're making is that any tax is a violation of rights, so any action by the government that uses that tax money is also a violation. If you want your rights to be protected, it has to be paid for. It cannot and will not be done for free. Perhaps you advocate a society where no one is protected, and everyone is responsible for their own protection. Any that case, any talk of rights is pretty useless, because no one will be protected from anything unless they themselves can protect against it.



Okay. And it will be necessary to cede some autonomy to such an entity. Without a state, we just get taken over by other states.

Can you mischaracterize anymore? I advocate for private police. Where payment is voluntary. Why can't the police, fire, and other services be bundled in insurance plans? Why do I have to pay for yours or others services? Why does it have to be compulsory? How come I cannot provide for my own safety and protection?

I don't expect anything done for free (Except Charity), nor do I want it to be. I advocate a voluntary free-market society. You do know Capitalism is voluntary exchange?

As for getting taken over by other States? Who? Canada or Mexico? We have two large oceans between us and just about everyone else. Secondly, how come Hitler didn't invade Switzerland? You do realize a country of nearly 400 + million without laws and restrictions about types of firearms being allowed to be owned would constitute the largest military force on the planet. No one would dare invade 400 + million militia. I know I'd have at least a M60, Grenades, Claymores, and other weaponry to keep me safe.

I think you are confused about the difference between a State and a Government. Let me clarify.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html


In attempting to outline how a "society without a state" – that is, an anarchist society – might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not "really" anarchism.

This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.

On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.

Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.

The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.

Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way "coercive." Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term "coercion" can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it "physical violence or the threat thereof," with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.

It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the worlds of Albert Jay Nock, "claims and exercises a monopoly of crime" over its territorial area.

The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists "assume that all people are good" and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess – and I do not believe that they are open to the charge – I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies.
In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime – theft, oppression, mass murder – on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.

A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the "nature of man," given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that needs to be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.

I also find it kind of disconcerting that you believe it necessary to violate liberty to protect liberty.

[BillyDkid]

you can still be principaled and achieve your goals. i think the "our way or the highway" approach is the reason this movement doesn't get anywhere... and why many people choose not to support it. it's not this movement that is waking people up - it's the direct impact on their wallets... which makes them question things and seek out information.

you can not force people into your frame of mind... they have to get there by themselves.I get what you are saying, but there are certain fundamental principles which, in my view, are non-negotiable. You either believe in self ownership or you don't. You either believe in the non-aggression principle or you don't.

[LDA]

As for getting taken over by other States? Who? Canada or Mexico? We have two large oceans between us and just about everyone else. Secondly, how come Hitler didn't invade Switzerland? You do realize a country of nearly 400 + million without laws and restrictions about types of firearms being allowed to be owned would constitute the largest military force on the planet. No one would dare invade 400 + million militia. I know I'd have at least a M60, Grenades, Claymores, and other weaponry to keep me safe.

After our economy is in ruins, I have no doubt that China or Russia could easily stage an invasion and easily overpower any kind of militia we could muster. Perhaps private defense agencies could defend parts of the country. In the absense of a state, would all regions between Canada and Mexico but protected from invasion? Who would be responsible for paying for such a thing? What if I don't want to pay for it? Don't I still benefit from it?

I'm afraid to say that states are here to stay. I understand the ideal you're trying to work towards, and perhaps it would work if all states were somehow abolished overnight. I should expand upon what I said originally: where there is no government, government will arise, and where there is no state, a state will arise. I see no other option, unless you know of a way to abolish the state and keep another one from taking its place.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Because some of us are sick of "compromise".

When you do this for more than 25 years, like I have, it becomes very clear that 98.5 percent quickly becomes 80 percent that becomes 60 percent that becomes 30 percent that becomes nothing.

Feet will be held to the fire, consequences be damned.

First off, all parties are compromises. They are a collection of weird beliefs and other cults. When all is said and done, both parties mirror each other in that they are moderate. If Obama is supporting extremism, that is his choice and his political folly. Certainly he isn't that naive.

[FrankRep]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Yup, it's the downfall of the Libertarian movement.
They want perfect "Libertarian" candidates.

[Matthew Zak]

I assume you voted for John McCain, right?

I assume you said that in sarcasm, right? John McCain is not on the Liberty side of the spectrum IMO, so no, I did not.

[Anti Federalist]

Q. Why do the Paranoid in this movement want to march backwards?

A. So they can always look out behind them?

Oh, that is priceless!!!

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/hbi2k/calvin_hobbes-laughing.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

First off, all parties are compromises. They are a collection of weird beliefs and other cults.

Which is precisely why I do not claim allegiance to any particular party.

[ibaghdadi]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Kudos Matthew. IMHO the most useful and most important post I've seen here in a long time.

Here's my take. First off there must be an absolute minimum that the entire movement agrees upon - kind of a quality bar. The premise is that anything less than "this" won't be acceptable. Now where to set the bar - that would depend largely upon the general political and social atmosphere.

But it's true that many libertarians are ideologues, and some are even staunch ideologues, and personally I despise staunch believers in just about anything, even libertarianism.

I honestly don't think the time has come for libertarianism. The time is coming, mind you, but it's not here yet. The movement hasn't reached critical mass yet. It'll take something big - financial meltdown, hyperinflation - something serious and big to turn "the people" towards libertarianism en masse.

The current state of affairs - politically, socially and especially economically - is not sustainable for much longer. We're just leaving an interesting decade and we have a far more interesting one ahead of us.


Iyad

[purplechoe]

We're talking about the Jesus jesus. And since he's against killing and stealing, I don't think he'd support war or taxes.

Now I understand and agree with you that we shouldn't waiver on our principals, like little taxes here and there even though they're smaller then the current status quo. But we need to be flexible and reasonable when communicating to people. And I know libertarians are for liberty, but when I hear libertarian part of me cringes. Not that I have anything against them, but I just hate labels. Even though I label myself a republican, I consider it more of an adjective then a noun.

We SHOULD just be people, Americans, doing the right thing. Libertarian, republican, socialist, anarchist, I mean, I don't care as long as the ideas are right and good. As long as the ideas are right and good, anybody can support right and good.

People have different ideas on what's right and what's bad. Unfortunately nearly everybody isn't going to get everything they want, and is going to end up with something they might disagree with, one way or the other.

One thing we can agree on, is that our country is headed in the wrong direction. We need to get the country back on track. And if it can't be 100% all the way perfect back on track, I'd rather it be 10% right on track then 90% backwards like our current democratic congress is doing.

Sometimes 10% right isn't good enough, even if it's currently 110% wrong. So those people just fight, fight, fight. Not everyone can keep trying to do as much as they can when other people are telling them they're not doing enough/are not good enough. We need to support each other and our overall goal. Otherwise, we'll just implode like we did in 2008

You're not as intelligent as you THINK you are!

Never mind actually standing for something... It's like I walked into townhall.com or hotair.com this month and not ronpaulforums... Are the chemicals in the water getting stronger or what?

[Matthew Zak]

Kudos Matthew. IMHO the most useful and most important post I've seen here in a long time.

Here's my take. First off there must be an absolute minimum that the entire movement agrees upon - kind of a quality bar. The premise is that anything less than "this" won't be acceptable. Now where to set the bar - that would depend largely upon the general political and social atmosphere.

But it's true that many libertarians are ideologues, and some are even staunch ideologues, and personally I despise staunch believers in just about anything, even libertarianism.

I honestly don't think the time has come for libertarianism. The time is coming, mind you, but it's not here yet. The movement hasn't reached critical mass yet. It'll take something big - financial meltdown, hyperinflation - something serious and big to turn "the people" towards libertarianism en masse.

The current state of affairs - politically, socially and especially economically - is not sustainable for much longer. We're just leaving an interesting decade and we have a far more interesting one ahead of us.


Iyad

I would have to agree. I don't feel apathetic in saying that, though I am sure some would see it that way. And I think the fight is absolutely worth it, and winnable, in the abstract sense. I'm 27. Before I am 40 I know I will see some kind of major world history come about, and I hope I am part of making it a positive thing.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I would have to agree. I don't feel apathetic in saying that, though I am sure some would see it that way. And I think the fight is absolutely worth it, and winnable, in the abstract sense. I'm 27. Before I am 40 I know I will see some kind of major world history come about, and I hope I am part of making it a positive thing.

There is only one true American movement with it being just a short step back towards that of revering our Founding Fathers and the self evident and unalienable Truth that they declared. All other movements are false ones. In other words, there is no political manipulation that will ever improve us. We don't need to do anything other than just hold the Truth above the cruel reality that tyranny uses to persecutes us. As this Truth becomes the Civil Purpose we constantly return to, our Civil Purpose supercedes the tormenting nature of all legal precedence created by past traditions.

[__27__]

I assume you said that in sarcasm, right? John McCain is not on the Liberty side of the spectrum IMO, so no, I did not.

He was closer than Obama. If "voting for who's closer" is your measuring stick, then 0.00002% libertarian is better than 0.00001% libertarian, no? So you should clearly vote for the person who is 0.00002% libertarian.

If you tell me you voted for Paul, or another third party type, than your argument falls in on itself, as you have just chosen to follow your principle and vote for someone who is unelectable for sake of principle alone. By your own argument, you would have been better off voting for the one of the two who had a shot which was 'closer' to libertarianism.

[Romulus]

True freedom only exist in the mind. If we cannot get behind Rand, Schiff and others championing our cause, it'll forever stay there.

[JustinTime]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

We're not spoiled at all, in fact, we never get the type of politicians who "send thrills up our legs" as Obama does to Chris Matthews.

And its that fact that is the problem here, the reason pro-freedom people are so touchy is that we've been lied to way too many times, Ive been a freedom-nut since I was in high school in the early 90s, and I have always been totally dissappointed in every successful candidate I supported, beginning with the '94 Republican takeover of Congress.

Now, as soon as I hear hem-hawing and backtracking from somebody who previously sounded good, I immediately start thinking "Here we go again."

Im not stupid, Ill take a 98% good candidate, but 98% good early in the campaign turns into 70% good late in the campaign, and about 50% good (or even worse) once in office.

[JustinTime]

True freedom only exist in the mind.

If thats true, lets just pack up and go home. We've got everything we want, in our minds.


If we cannot get behind Rand, Schiff and others championing our cause, it'll forever stay there.

Ill be behind them 100%... as long as they champion our cause.

[DjLoTi]

You're not as intelligent as you THINK you are!


I was going to send you a private message but apperently I could only send you an email. So anyway I'm not sure if you just don't like me or what but I'm not sure what the point of this statement is.

I'm just wondering like.. why would u call me out like that. I guess I don't like being called out or when people insult me one way or the other...

[Romulus]

If thats true, lets just pack up and go home. We've got everything we want, in our minds.



Ill be behind them 100%... as long as they champion our cause.

Did you just sign up here to start slinging your high-road?

Remember one thing, liberty candidates ARE the minority in this game. There are things called tactics. So lets not assume anything.

I see no logic is derailing a good solid chance to win with someone who you *think may not be perfect, only to allow a proven neocon take their place.

Where is the logic there?

[john_anderson_ii]

Can you mischaracterize anymore? I advocate for private police. Where payment is voluntary. Why can't the police, fire, and other services be bundled in insurance plans? Why do I have to pay for yours or others services? Why does it have to be compulsory? How come I cannot provide for my own safety and protection?


This is foolhardy in a very practical sense. Say you don't pay for police, and I do. You and I have a disagreement about who owns a piece of property. I call my bought and paid for police, and they show up. You can't call them because you haven't paid. Who then get's arrested. I know, I know, you'll shoot me or whatever before I call them or whatever, but if you don't or can't, what would you do then?

Beyond the police, what about the Judicial? Would you like to have your trail in a private court room whom is a subcontractor of my paid for police agency?

Think of the old wild west, before Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. were States. There existed out here mostly a form of Anarchy for the settler and gold rushers. Why did townships and settlements choose to elect a Sherrif and a Judge rather than pay a gang of men to enforce the law? The reason is almost self-explanatory. An elected Sherrif and Judge have a much better chance of achieving equal application and execution of the law than anyone for hire. The people of the Old West made a practical market decision. Equal application of the law and a reliable law enforcement service was better left to a governing body than in private hands. In private hands, one might hire the James-Younger gang, call them police, and use them as hired muscle to enforce their will on others.

The idea of privatizing law enforcement, trials, and punishment is a joke, and would never be even remotely practical. The only ways for men to protect their individual rights is to move to a remote desert island where no one lives, or institute a governing body period. Once a governing body is instituted the only way men can protect their rights to keep said government limited to it's proper role of protecting those rights. There is no two-ways about it.

[TheEvilDetector]

This is foolhardy in a very practical sense. Say you don't pay for police, and I do. You and I have a disagreement about who owns a piece of property. I call my bought and paid for police, and they show up. You can't call them because you haven't paid. Who then get's arrested. I know, I know, you'll shoot me or whatever before I call them or whatever, but if you don't or can't, what would you do then?

Beyond the police, what about the Judicial? Would you like to have your trail in a private court room whom is a subcontractor of my paid for police agency?

Think of the old wild west, before Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. were States. There existed out here mostly a form of Anarchy for the settler and gold rushers. Why did townships and settlements choose to elect a Sherrif and a Judge rather than pay a gang of men to enforce the law? The reason is almost self-explanatory. An elected Sherrif and Judge have a much better chance of achieving equal application and execution of the law than anyone for hire. The people of the Old West made a practical market decision. Equal application of the law and a reliable law enforcement service was better left to a governing body than in private hands. In private hands, one might hire the James-Younger gang, call them police, and use them as hired muscle to enforce their will on others.

The idea of privatizing law enforcement, trials, and punishment is a joke, and would never be even remotely practical. The only ways for men to protect their individual rights is to move to a remote desert island where no one lives, or institute a governing body period. Once a governing body is instituted the only way men can protect their rights to keep said government limited to it's proper role of protecting those rights. There is no two-ways about it.

Hear, Hear!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

After our economy is in ruins, I have no doubt that China or Russia could easily stage an invasion and easily overpower any kind of militia we could muster. Perhaps private defense agencies could defend parts of the country. In the absense of a state, would all regions between Canada and Mexico but protected from invasion? Who would be responsible for paying for such a thing? What if I don't want to pay for it? Don't I still benefit from it?

I'm afraid to say that states are here to stay. I understand the ideal you're trying to work towards, and perhaps it would work if all states were somehow abolished overnight. I should expand upon what I said originally: where there is no government, government will arise, and where there is no state, a state will arise. I see no other option, unless you know of a way to abolish the state and keep another one from taking its place.

It would cost hundreds of billions just for China to invade Taiwan! If it wasn't immediately successful, then the cost would escalate into the trillions. So, how could it invade the United States? It is a logistical nightmare to invade the United States because of its numerous ports. And consider that, whle it has a declining population, Russia doesn't even have enough people to man its own borders. What would happen if China got bored, yawned, and then decided to move north taking 2/3's of Russia's territory while doing so? That would be the bigger fear.

[jmdrake]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Different people came to this movement for different reasons. When I threw my support behind Ron Paul I was specifically looking for someone who was 1) against the war in Iraq, 2) against the Patriot Act and 3) against the department of homeland security. Later I added being against the bailout and wanting an audit of the federal reserve. Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich fit my most important criteria. I didn't support DK over his gun control position. But why should I support someone else who's less "communist" than DK, but fails on some or all of my main criteria?

When Ron Paul gave his speech at the "joint 3rd party press conference" he outlined 4 core principles shared by himself, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. They were in agreement on 1) foreign policy 2) privacy 3) national debt and 4) the federal reserve. For me it's still important that someone is "perfect" on these 4 positions. I care not where they fall on some artificial scale.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is foolhardy in a very practical sense. Say you don't pay for police, and I do. You and I have a disagreement about who owns a piece of property. I call my bought and paid for police, and they show up. You can't call them because you haven't paid. Who then get's arrested. I know, I know, you'll shoot me or whatever before I call them or whatever, but if you don't or can't, what would you do then?

Beyond the police, what about the Judicial? Would you like to have your trail in a private court room whom is a subcontractor of my paid for police agency?

Think of the old wild west, before Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. were States. There existed out here mostly a form of Anarchy for the settler and gold rushers. Why did townships and settlements choose to elect a Sherrif and a Judge rather than pay a gang of men to enforce the law? The reason is almost self-explanatory. An elected Sherrif and Judge have a much better chance of achieving equal application and execution of the law than anyone for hire. The people of the Old West made a practical market decision. Equal application of the law and a reliable law enforcement service was better left to a governing body than in private hands. In private hands, one might hire the James-Younger gang, call them police, and use them as hired muscle to enforce their will on others.

The idea of privatizing law enforcement, trials, and punishment is a joke, and would never be even remotely practical. The only ways for men to protect their individual rights is to move to a remote desert island where no one lives, or institute a governing body period. Once a governing body is instituted the only way men can protect their rights to keep said government limited to it's proper role of protecting those rights. There is no two-ways about it.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

If we have a disagreement about who owns a piece of property, it's not a police matter. It would be a matter between my judicial services, and yours. For example, today, many companies work together. In the banking industry, my Visa card works at other companies ATM's, transfers, etc. I can name numerous other industries where this also happens. Contractual easements. It happens quite a lot in the cell phone sector where my Verizon service can call and connect with AT&T and vice versa. It would obviously be in everyones best interest to have fair outcomes, or else both parties lose customers. Consumer Reports, and other independant agencies would rate the quality of service. People would be free to shop around who has the best service and who most closely follows their own morals.

If you want to join a home owners association with their own judicial services and law, then why not?

Seriously, you don't honestly believe that some of the smartest men in the world working on this Governmental theory would overlook something that is in plain sight?

If I was inside their jurisdiction (IE your property) and committed a crime according to the laws of your property (Under their services), then yes it should be held in their court room and under their jurisdiction. This is no different than if I go overseas and commit a crime. You don't see foreigners being unfairly handled and persecuted on an intentional basis overseas do you?


In private hands, one might hire the James-Younger gang, call them police, and use them as hired muscle to enforce their will on others.

Who's going to hire them? Say if they start to steal from others, who is going to pay for their services? No one. So, how then, do you plan on paying them to rampage around for you? If they then, do violate others liberties, thats when your private police and judiciary get involved and protect you, no differently than the "public" police now, except that private police couldn't be as barbaric as they are now because you could simply stop paying them and choose another police department that has better customer service. A wonderful thing about voluntary services, they actually have to provide something someone wants. With taxes, they can do whatever the hell they want and have no repercussions.

[JustinTime]

Did you just sign up here to start slinging your high-road?

Remember one thing, liberty candidates ARE the minority in this game. There are things called tactics. So lets not assume anything.

I see no logic is derailing a good solid chance to win with someone who you *think may not be perfect, only to allow a proven neocon take their place.

Where is the logic there?

I see no logic in that either, but who said they wanted to do that? Not me.

Ill support somebody who is only 80% good, but that doesnt mean I wont push them to be better than 80%, or continue to support them if they drift below 50%.

Its just common sense. The more pro-freedom you are, the more I will support you.

[TheEvilDetector]

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
If I was inside their jurisdiction (IE your property) and committed a crime according to the laws of your property (Under their services), then yes it should be held in their court room and under their jurisdiction. This is no different than if I go overseas and commit a crime. You don't see foreigners being unfairly handled and persecuted on an intentional basis overseas do you?


God forbid, you step on a neighbours property by mistake, where trespassing carries a mandatory death penalty.

Who knows, you may have been drunk or something, but the LAW (which your neighbour wrote just the other week for his nation) is the LAW.

You're going to hang.

You should have brought a truck, containing books with the codes applicable to all neighbours in the surrounding 10 miles, or further if required.

Everytime you deal with a new person, you ask them for a pointer to their code and read it thoroughly.

Maybe the market would deal with this, by using just one code for regions to make things more standardised?
(based on majority opinion of what constitutes reasonable punishment for any given crime, does that sound familiar?)

You have a de-facto government, already.

Someone will enforce this code for all the residents in the region and I would venture to say that if someone violated these laws and
used the defence that they don't apply to him/her because he personally never agreed to be subject to them,
the rest would not look too kindly on him/her, for if that's all it takes to mount a successful defence to a charge,
then you might as well not have a law at all.

Repeat after me:

THERE
WILL
ALWAYS
BE
A
FORM
OF GOVERNMENT
AND
A
CERTAIN
AMOUNT
OF COERCION
THE
GOAL
IS
TO
HOLD
GOVERNMENT
TO
ITS
PROPER
DEFENSIVE
ROLE
TO
DEFEND
LIFE
PROPERTY
AND
LIBERTY
AND
NOTHING MORE

and the constitution for a constitutional republic is an excellent framework, why re-invent the wheel?

[LibForestPaul]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom. Freedom to endure the consequence of their decisions, freedom to walk down any dark path, freedom to fail, freedom of others we judge reprehensible.
Sheeple like law and order, their bellies full, and no pain. Mussolini did bring that, did he not, and the sheeple were happy the trains ran on time.

[cbc58]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom.

I have to disagree. I beleive the reason is that it is often presented as an "all or nothing" proposition by over zealous supporters. 98% of people don't think like that -- and telling them "that's the way it has to be" turns them off. A more middle road tact is needed and that will result in more support and members in the long run.

[Met Income]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom.

I have to disagree. I beleive the reason is that it is often presented as an "all or nothing" proposition by over zealous supporters. 98% of people don't think like that -- and telling them "that's the way it has to be" turns them off. A more middle road tact is needed and that will result in more support and members in the long run.

You can't compromise at the choice to put a gun in someone's face or not. It's absolutely wrong and obvious and if someone doesn't get that, they're just not going to be convinced.

[Romulus]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom. Freedom to endure the consequence of their decisions, freedom to walk down any dark path, freedom to fail, freedom of others we judge reprehensible.
Sheeple like law and order, their bellies full, and no pain. Mussolini did bring that, did he not, and the sheeple were happy the trains ran on time.

I think this is completely true. My family is very independent minded but is very much turned off to the truth. They simply aren't comfortable discussing it. They'd rather live a comfortable lie.

[Anti Federalist]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom. Freedom to endure the consequence of their decisions, freedom to walk down any dark path, freedom to fail, freedom of others we judge reprehensible.
Sheeple like law and order, their bellies full, and no pain. Mussolini did bring that, did he not, and the sheeple were happy the trains ran on time.

Yup, that^^^

[ChaosControl]

There are some things I'll never compromise on.

I will never support someone who is not pro-life, no matter how close they are to be politically otherwise.

I also would not support someone who favors deficit spending, or foreign interventionism.

Fiscal responsibility, pro-life, and non-interventionism are the three most important areas to me. Other things are highly important, but I can compromise on some things if someone agrees with me on those three.

[YumYum]

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is people in general are terrified of freedom. Freedom to endure the consequence of their decisions, freedom to walk down any dark path, freedom to fail, freedom of others we judge reprehensible.
Sheeple like law and order, their bellies full, and no pain. Mussolini did bring that, did he not, and the sheeple were happy the trains ran on time.

I believe the reason the movement does not get anywhere is because nobody knows what the movement is. What is the movement?

[Romulus]

the movement needs to be ending the fed. period. they start the wars, the fuck up our currency and god knows what else. they are the true power. with them in place, we can have no true sovereign country or freedom.

[YumYum]

the movement needs to be ending the fed. period. they start the wars, the fuck up our currency and god knows what else. they are the true power. with them in place, we can have no true sovereign country or freedom.

So why have we stopped? Why are we focused on all this other bullshit?

[Romulus]

good question. lots of little battles are important to win the public war though.

[Akus]

Because some of us are sick of "compromise".
Then may be you shouldn't be in politics, because politics is ALL about compromise

[jmdrake]

So why have we stopped? Why are we focused on all this other bullshit?

Maybe it's about more than just ending the fed? Maybe tyrants can think of new ways to steal your money? If the fed gets replaced with a global "crap and trade" bank have we accomplished anything? Maybe there are a lot of smaller battles that if we lose we'll never get the opportunity to end the fed? Maybe we need to bring in others like myself who weren't initially thinking that much about the fed, but were "fed up" with our neocon foreign policy and domestic police state? Ron Paul laid out 4 common principles in 2008. Only one of them was the fed.

[jmdrake]

Then may be you shouldn't be in politics, because politics is ALL about compromise

Or maybe we need more non compromising people in politics. ;)

To be a good negotiator you need some core things that you won't compromise on.

[Matthew Zak]

Think about it this way. If we are continuously, persistently electing people who are closer and closer to 'Libertarian', every time someone is elected, they are replacing somebody less Libertarian than themselves. That is the only way to reach perfection. Expecting every candidate to be exactly as you want them to be is as unrealistic as expecting yourself to throw a no hitter the first time you pitch a game. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but you get the point.

[Romulus]

Think about it this way. If we are continuously, persistently electing people who are closer and closer to 'Libertarian', every time someone is elected, they are replacing somebody less Libertarian than themselves. That is the only way to reach perfection. Expecting every candidate to be exactly as you want them to be is as unrealistic as expecting yourself to throw a no hitter the first time you pitch a game. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but you get the point.

I get your point and I agree with it. When libertarian candidates start to increase in power and size, so will the ideals of Libertarianism. I think it'll become more self perpetuation as guys like Rand, Sciff, etc get elected into office. One by one we must root out the collectivists, the best way we can. I think we should all be united behind that principle.

[constituent]

you can not force people into your frame of mind... they have to get there by themselves.

Indeed. Any attempts to do so will only be met with scorn. Not the best way to win friends and influence people...


Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

Is there a specific candidate that you have in mind? I'm curious as to which issue it is that has resulted in the loss of a percentage point and a half on the "libertarian scale." How are each of these issues weighted? Who determines their weight?

Or is this just an arbitrary number out of the sky conjured to help you pretend that you're actually making a case here?

If so (as it obviously is) what case is it that you're trying to make? That your candidate is awesome, or that other people just suck? Both maybe?

Perhaps consider working on your message if you want it to be in any way effective. You could start by researching the other 100,000 bitchfest threads about libertarian purism ALREADY available in the archives of ...get this... ronpaulforums.com to see what has worked and what hasn't.

Anyway, happy new year beeyotches!

[jmdrake]

Think about it this way. If we are continuously, persistently electing people who are closer and closer to 'Libertarian', every time someone is elected, they are replacing somebody less Libertarian than themselves. That is the only way to reach perfection. Expecting every candidate to be exactly as you want them to be is as unrealistic as expecting yourself to throw a no hitter the first time you pitch a game. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but you get the point.

Again I disagree with the idea that someone who is the most "libertarian" is the "gold standard" (no pun intended). For one thing Ron Paul isn't strictly libertarian. (His views on abortion seem out of step with most self described libertarians I've seen here.) And frankly I agree with Ron Paul on abortion. For another how do you judge this? Is Sarah Palin more libertarian the Dennis Kucinich? She supported the bailout, he didn't. She supports endless preemptive wars and he doesn't. She supports the unPatriot Act and Homeland inSecurity and he doesn't. He's come out strong against the federal reserve and she is silent on it. On the flipside he supports single payer healthcare (though he voted against Obamacare) and she's against it. He for carbon taxes (although he voted against the last cap and trade bill) and she's (at times) against it. If you compare both to the 4 Ron Paul "core principles" I posted earlier, Dennis Kucinich comes closer than Palin. (Foreign policy, privacy, federal reserve and deficit). But I think most people would put him closer to "socialist" then "libertarian".

I think the only way to go is to forget labels, focus on core principals, and base our support on how close individual candidates come to those core principals.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Matthew Zak]

Indeed. Any attempts to do so will only be met with scorn. Not the best way to win friends and influence people...



Is there a specific candidate that you have in mind? I'm curious as to which issue it is that has resulted in the loss of a percentage point and a half on the "libertarian scale." How are each of these issues weighted? Who determines their weight?

Or is this just an arbitrary number out of the sky conjured to help you pretend that you're actually making a case here?

If so (as it obviously is) what case is it that you're trying to make? That your candidate is awesome, or that other people just suck? Both maybe?

Perhaps consider working on your message if you want it to be in any way effective. You could start by researching the other 100,000 bitchfest threads about libertarian purism ALREADY available in the archives of ...get this... ronpaulforums.com to see what has worked and what hasn't.

Anyway, happy new year beeyotches!



Thanks for the advice. But I'm pretty pleased with the content and delivery of my message, and I think it was as effective as I hoped it would be. I'm sorry if you missed it.

[constituent]

Thanks for the advice. But I'm pretty pleased with the content and delivery of my message, and I think it was as effective as I hoped it would be. I'm sorry if you missed it.

Well ain't you just a darling? In fact, Matthew Zak, I was quite certain that you were pleased with yourself when I formulated my response. Indeed, if there was one overriding message that I took away from your officious, obnoxious and arrogant OP, it was that very thing...

Sorry if you missed it, have a great day.

edited to add:

If I could get an answer to these questions, again, it would be appreciated. Thanks

Is there a specific candidate that you have in mind? I'm curious as to which issue it is that has resulted in the loss of a percentage point and a half on the "libertarian scale." How are each of these issues weighted? Who determines their weight?

Or is this just an arbitrary number out of the sky conjured to help you pretend that you're actually making a case here?

If so (as it obviously is) what case is it that you're trying to make? That your candidate is awesome, or that other people just suck? Both maybe?

[LDA]

It is an arbitrary number, man. Try not to take it so literally. Obviously, you can't quantify political views like that.

The point is that if you stand for "a", "b", "c", "d", all the way through "z", and someone disagrees with you on a specific aspect of "f," you don't have to go all out to demonize that person and reduce their chances of getting elected. You can voice your difference in opinion, sure. You should at least support that person over someone else that you disagree with on issues a-z. We've seen in other threads where people disagree with Peter Schiff on one line he said about Iran, and they completely remove their support for him as a result and throw their weight behind Linda McMahon, who stands for nothing.

[nobody's_hero]

Again I disagree with the idea that someone who is the most "libertarian" is the "gold standard" (no pun intended). For one thing Ron Paul isn't strictly libertarian. (His views on abortion seem out of step with most self described libertarians I've seen here.) And frankly I agree with Ron Paul on abortion. For another how do you judge this? Is Sarah Palin more libertarian the Dennis Kucinich? She supported the bailout, he didn't. She supports endless preemptive wars and he doesn't. She supports the unPatriot Act and Homeland inSecurity and he doesn't. He's come out strong against the federal reserve and she is silent on it. On the flipside he supports single payer healthcare (though he voted against Obamacare) and she's against it. He for carbon taxes (although he voted against the last cap and trade bill) and she's (at times) against it. If you compare both to the 4 Ron Paul "core principles" I posted earlier, Dennis Kucinich comes closer than Palin. (Foreign policy, privacy, federal reserve and deficit). But I think most people would put him closer to "socialist" then "libertarian".

I think the only way to go is to forget labels, focus on core principals, and base our support on how close individual candidates come to those core principals.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Well said.

I don't think Schiff is on his way down, either. If he starts out at 90% 'libertarian' (whatever the label means anymore), and keeps hanging out with Ron Paul, he'll get better, in my opinion. I don't agree with everything Ron Paul supports (I was met with familiar chastisement when I voiced my discontent about earmarks, which, in perspective, were by no means nearly important enough for me to drop my support for Dr. Paul, so I didn't keep making a big stink about it).

I don't think anyone is wanting to "march backwards," but simply to inform people. However, there does come a time when it seems to go beyond "information spreading," to a point at which the evidence presenter expects everyone to immediately drop support for this candidate, rather than consider the evidence for themselves and make their own informed decisions. We don't all vote alike. Some voted for John McCain, some voted for Barr, Baldwin, Nader. In the grand scheme of things, it didn't really matter as they all got steamrolled by the Obama craze. Hopefully, what does matter, is that everyone voted as their conscience directed, and that they were comfortable with their decision.

[Matthew Zak]

Well ain't you just a darling? In fact, Matthew Zak, I was quite certain that you were pleased with yourself when I formulated my response. Indeed, if there was one overriding message that I took away from your officious, obnoxious and arrogant OP, it was that very thing...

Sorry if you missed it, have a great day.

edited to add:

If I could get an answer to these questions, again, it would be appreciated. Thanks

Is there a specific candidate that you have in mind? I'm curious as to which issue it is that has resulted in the loss of a percentage point and a half on the "libertarian scale." How are each of these issues weighted? Who determines their weight?

Or is this just an arbitrary number out of the sky conjured to help you pretend that you're actually making a case here?

If so (as it obviously is) what case is it that you're trying to make? That your candidate is awesome, or that other people just suck? Both maybe?

Use your imagination.

[CCTelander]

Then may be you shouldn't be in politics, because politics is ALL about compromise

Which is exactly why political "solutions" will NEVER work.

But hey, let's not let actual experience get in the way.

[constituent]

The point is that if you stand for "a", "b", "c", "d", all the way through "z", and someone disagrees with you on a specific aspect of "f," you don't have to go all out to demonize that person...

Which is exactly my point. You would think that Matthew Zak would be able to figure out that he's doing the exact thing he's complaining of "the paranoids" doing.

No wonder he's so pleased with himself. Ignorance, they say, is bliss.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Which is precisely why I do not claim allegiance to any particular party.

The two party system was used to judge Constitutionality with each party competing for power in order to sway the interpretation of it. This is because the Supreme Court did not start off judging the Constitutionality of law.

[constituent]

Use your imagination.

Nice skirt. You should shave more often. ;)

[MelissaWV]

You seem very paranoid about paranoid people.

[silverhandorder]

I think both libertarians and anarchists need to come together. In preference I am an anarchist in practice I am a libertarian. What anarchists need to realize is that we will never have an anarchist society without having a libertarian one first.

[constituent]

You seem very paranoid about paranoid people.

That's how it always starts...

[MelissaWV]

That's how it always starts...

STOP LOOKING AT ME!!! :eek:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Which is exactly why political "solutions" will NEVER work.

But hey, let's not let actual experience get in the way.

In other words, Washington DC is just about as far away from most of us as Tyranny in England was away from its original 13 colonies in America.
We solve our problems on the local level. We lobby away our rights on the Federal level. As small businesses grow faster, pay better and supply more revenue to the local economy, the large corporations lobby the Federal government to force us to buy their products!
While owners of small companies have an intimate relationship with his or her employees and customers (Sam Walton), huge corporations communicate to their employees and customers through attorneys (Walmart today).
As attorneys take over the operations of businesses, employees lose incentive in learning how to do their jobs better.
In other words, in a tyranny of pimping and whoring, the little whores are not paid to think!
In this cruel world, people are not paid enough to maintain an ethic system. That is why managers during the Great Depression had to lock the doors of their companies to order to keep employees from stealing. Nevermind that the managers stole from them, as they still do today, that being a perk of the official position, of course. Anyway, when their buildings caught on fire, their employees went up in smoke with the product.
The real solution to this problem is the constant breakup of major corporations when their business is deemed a detrement to the best interests of "we the people . . .."
An example of what I speak would be the breakup of the major oil companies. Compared to the majors, the Independent oil companies sell their fuel for some 10 to 15 cents less per gallon. Why and How? Well marketing for the major oil companies is nothing more than selling just three kinds of fuel: super premium, premium and regular while the Independents have to be more vigorous in order to guarantee their survival.
As we all know, what the majors do is not marketing. Marketing in the real world of severe competition requires innovations as well as constant belt tightening. When the major oil companies are allowed to both produce the product and to market it, the waste and corruption that happens is horrendous.
The real solution is to split them up just like the nation split up ATT. Although ATT predicted doom and gloom, the telecommunications industry exploded creating a multi trillion dollar industry out of one that was dominated only by ATT and General Telephone.

[HRD53]

Who's going to hire them? Say if they start to steal from others, who is going to pay for their services? No one. So, how then, do you plan on paying them to rampage around for you?

Did you just say that if a private police force became corrupt that all you would have to do is stop paying them and they would go away? If you hired a corrupt private police force don't you think it would be possible that they wouldn't just leave when you tell them that you don't want their services anymore? Then you'd have to hire another police force to get rid of that police force... Lets operate in reality, SOME government is needed.

[constituent]

Did you just say that if a private police force became corrupt that all you would have to do is stop paying them and they would go away?

Huh... and in your system, when the public police become corrupt, what do you do to make them go away?

[Met Income]

Did you just say that if a private police force became corrupt that all you would have to do is stop paying them and they would go away? If you hired a corrupt private police force don't you think it would be possible that they wouldn't just leave when you tell them that you don't want their services anymore? Then you'd have to hire another police force to get rid of that police force... Lets operate in reality, SOME government is needed.

If people stopped paying them, how would they operate?

[Danke]

If people stopped paying them, how would they operate?

I think a free people wouldn't really need much of a police force. Me, my family and neighbors will protect ourselves (and others) from individual violence.

I think we may hire a detective force to solve crimes.

[TotalLiberty]

I definitely think we should reconsider the very idea of government. Anarchy simply means "no ruler". I can't think of a reason I would want a stranger to rule part of my life...can anyone else? If there are bad people in society, it would seem to be that they would be the ones that gravitate to positions of power, so then we have bad people ruling over good people.

[constituent]

I definitely think we should reconsider the very idea of government. Anarchy simply means "no ruler". I can't think of a reason I would want a stranger to rule part of my life...can anyone else? If there are bad people in society, it would seem to be that they would be the ones that gravitate to positions of power, so then we have bad people ruling over good people.

Someone forgot their Thorazine...

;)

[cheapseats]

You also got to remember, there are a few people with a few thousand posts that just keep fighting and fighting and fighting for their 'perfection'.

Sticking to principles and Perfectionism are not the same thing.




It makes it harder for the rest of us who just want to move in the right direction the best possible way with the best we have.

There is legitimate, bona fide disagreement over the best possible way and the best possible people. That doesn't automatically make "your side" Right.





I mean, jesus isn't running for congress any time soon, so for now we have to accept the imperfect human beings.


Insinuating Jesus into American Politics is blasphemous.

Accepting human imperfection is not incompatible with demanding higher standards from those who would lord over others.




but it's important for us not to allow the dissenters to undermine us or frustrate us.

Speaking of imperfection, do you concede that you and "your side" cannot HUMANLY be Right about everything?




We just have to keep moving forward...

Point me to the forward progress.

[cheapseats]

Because some of us are sick of "compromise".

When you do this for more than 25 years, like I have, it becomes very clear that 98.5 percent quickly becomes 80 percent that becomes 60 percent that becomes 30 percent that becomes nothing.

Feet will be held to the fire, consequences be damned.


I've "only" spent THREE YEARS OF A SHORT LIFE at this, and I cannot BELIEVE that pansy-assed Americans are still applauding "Baby Steps."

People need to get a few things straight.

APPEASEMENT NEVER APPEASES.

BEING DOLED BACK A FRACTION OF THAT WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM YOU DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROGRESS, AND IT IS NOT EVEN IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS LIBERTY.

[silverhandorder]

I've "only" spent THREE YEARS OF A SHORT LIFE at this, and I cannot BELIEVE that pansy-assed Americans are still applauding "Baby Steps."

People need to get this straight. APPEASEMENT NEVER APPEASES.

Then I question if you know what appeasement is or that you really have any idea of what Rand and Schiff are doing.

Appeasement is when you continue to let people do as they wish without wanting to confront them.

None of that fits either of them. Their beliefs are as liberty minded as it can possibly be.

The facts are simply that both candidates spoke out vehemently against empire building, foreign intervention and war.

The fact that only a tiny fraction of their stances can be somehow misconstrued as anti liberty is more likely that you are grasping as straws then they are pandering to neocons. If they were really pandering they would simply run as neocons since running as neocons is much easier road to a senate seat then taking on liberty platform and in making some offbeat neoconish statement.

For example the infamous Schiff statement about "bombing nuke sites" was preempted with an "if we as a nation consider Iran dangerous". Something tells me that Schiff personally does not think Iran is dangerous. Maybe his twitter reply the next day saying that he does not want to bomb Iran tipped me off.

Point being you are either trolling, have your head in your ass or you are on some personal mission.

[cheapseats]

Then I question if you know what appeasement is or that you really have any idea of what Rand and Schiff are doing.

Interesting that you bunch Rand (one-name-like-a-star?) and Schiff together, for I do not speak out against Rand Paul except to warn that family dynasties in politics are, IN MY VIEW, definitively worse than garden-variety family dynasties.

Do you MEAN to imply that my criticisms of Peter Schiff are equally relevant to Rand Paul?




Appeasement is when you continue to let people do as they wish without wanting to confront them.


WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING, ARE WE NOT? PUSSY-FOOTING AROUND WHILE WAR ESCALATES, CORRUPT POLITICIANS AND EXECUTIVES GET OFF SCOT-FREE, DEBT MOUNTS THEATRICALLY AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE TRAMPLED.

Some animated typing, to be sure, but basically it's FULL STEAM AHEAD.




None of that fits either of them. Their beliefs are as liberty minded as it can possibly be.


You link them, IN MY VIEW, to Rand Paul's detriment. POINT ME TO PETER SCHIFF'S LIBERTY-LOVINGNESS OUTSIDE OF LIBERTY TO MAKE MONEY? C'mon, put a spin on the ABSENCE of a voting history.

Do EITHER advocate for rigorous prosecution of White Collar Criminals, private AND public sector?






Point being you are either trolling, have your head in your ass or you are on some personal mission.


Personal mission, as opposed to a COLLECTIVE mission?

How my country fares very much affects ME. In the spirit of Survival of the Fittest, I AM self-interested. I think y'all are setting up a repeat of 2008. That bodes ill FOR ME.

Setting ME aside, reluctant as I am to do so, there ARE the matters of the Least Among Us and Completely Innocent Strangers who are either falling off or being BLOWN OFF the game board while we peaceably and ineffectively pursue The Political Process. Death count in Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone know?

If we would force the confrontations that we steadfastly avoid, in the manner of COWARDS, the battles themselves would RENDER candidates. New leaders would MANIFEST as surely as cream rises to the top.

Instead, y'all elect to STAY SAFE, and pump your time/energy/money/emotion into particular people -- puny humans -- as though they are NEW Messiahs. What happens if Peter Schiff succumbs to Swine Flu and Rand Paul gets hit by a bus? Poof, that's it? Any chance of restoring Reason to American Governance is finito?

Y'all are STILL playing the game of equivocating and pulling punches "to GET elected," as though parallel compromise and back-peddling will cease to occur once they're IN office. Magical Thinking.

[DjLoTi]

Point me to the forward progress.

I'd say Ron Paul and the people at Ron Paul forums but you're already here, so idk what to tell u.

[cheapseats]

I'd say Ron Paul and the people at Ron Paul forums but you're already here, so idk what to tell u.

By EVERY tangible measure, the broadcloth of the American Citizenry is falling further behind. Read that, further toward Serfdom.

By measures both tangible and psychological, a New & NOT Improved World Order proceeds apace.

[silverhandorder]

Interesting that you bunch Rand (one-name-like-a-star?) and Schiff together, for I do not speak out against Rand Paul except to warn that family dynasties in politics are, IN MY VIEW, definitively worse than garden-variety family dynasties.

Do you MEAN to imply that my criticisms of Peter Schiff are equally relevant to Rand Paul?

From the way you sound (clinging to irrelevant issues) yes. Rand said something about Guntanamo, Peter said something about fighting terror. Same shit as far as anyone with a brain cell is concerned.

The facts are that both candidates are against the current wars and want our troops home.


WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING, ARE WE NOT? PUSSY-FOOTING AROUND WHILE WAR ESCALATES, CORRUPT POLITICIANS AND EXECUTIVES GET OFF SCOT-FREE, DEBT MOUNTS THEATRICALLY AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE TRAMPLED.

Some animated typing, to be sure, but basically it's FULL STEAM AHEAD.

Not everyone's main issue is war. I care more about not going bankrupt then morality of pre-emptive war. Don't get me wrong I am against both but my priorities are with stopping burrowing that we can never pay back.

Last I checked both Schiff was perfectly in line with ending our empire anyways.


You link them, IN MY VIEW, to Rand Paul's detriment. POINT ME TO PETER SCHIFF'S LIBERTY-LOVINGNESS OUTSIDE OF LIBERTY TO MAKE MONEY? C'mon, put a spin on the ABSENCE of a voting history.


Rand has a voting history? Both candidates are very outspoken and we can easily trace many of their stances a decade into the past.


POINT ME TO PETER SCHIFF'S LIBERTY-LOVINGNESS OUTSIDE OF LIBERTY TO MAKE MONEY?

Really?


Do EITHER advocate for rigorous prosecution of White Collar Criminals, private AND public sector?


I don't even know how this is at all relevant.





Personal mission, as opposed to a COLLECTIVE mission?


As in you don't like the guy for w.e reason and will distort and use dishonest tactics to attack him.


How my country fares very much affects ME. In the spirit of Survival of the Fittest, I AM self-interested. I think y'all are setting up a repeat of 2008. That bodes ill FOR ME.

Ok so you think Schiff is a long shot and that he will be a weak legislator. Yet you also do not like Rand because he is going for a family dynasty. So then what is your plan?


Setting ME aside, reluctant as I am to do so, there ARE the matters of the Least Among Us and Completely Innocent Strangers who are either falling off or being BLOWN OFF the game board while we peaceably and ineffectively pursue The Political Process. Death count in Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone know?

I am sorry I care more about my self being screwed then other people being screwed. Now I know foreign policy is tied in with the rest of the platform but I first want to stave of bankruptcy rather than end immorality of war. Maybe you should go to anti-war.com instead?


If we would force the confrontations that we steadfastly avoid, in the manner of COWARDS, the battles themselves would RENDER candidates. New leaders would MANIFEST as surely as cream rises to the top.

Disagreement on how to achieve our goals does not constitute avoiding confrontation. As I said before for me all that matters is that both candidates are against war and that I can count on them to bring all the troops home. So far nothing shattered my faith in that.


Instead, y'all elect to STAY SAFE, and pump your time/energy/money/emotion into particular people -- puny humans -- as though they are NEW Messiahs. What happens if Peter Schiff succumbs to Swine Flu and Rand Paul gets hit by a bus? Poof, that's it? Any chance of restoring Reason to American Governance is finito?

Just because you don't like a particular leader does not mean we are all lemmings. If you can't find one you like maybe you should lead your self?


Y'all are STILL playing the game of equivocating and pulling punches "to GET elected," as though parallel compromise and back-peddling will cease to occur once they're IN office. Magical Thinking.
Again within the liberty movement you are a huge minority. AKA people who think Schiff is backpedaling on anything. The only people I saw come out against Schiff are Anarchists and you. Don't seam like good odds.

[silverhandorder]

By EVERY tangible measure, the broadcloth of the American Citizenry is falling further behind. Read that, further toward Serfdom.

By measures both tangible and psychological, a New & NOT Improved World Order proceeds apace.

It's not like we were going to turn this around. If you think that you are not capable of critical thinking. However the only tangible metric by which liberty movement can fairly be judged on is it's growth and acceptance by mainstream. In both cases that is a tremendous success.

[CCTelander]

By EVERY tangible measure, the broadcloth of the American Citizenry is falling further behind. Read that, further toward Serfdom.

By measures both tangible and psychological, a New & NOT Improved World Order proceeds apace.

I've been actively involved in the so-called "liberty movement" for 35+ years now. I've yet to see that movement make any significant progress. Oh we make a lot of noise from time to time and express our righteous indignation, but EVERY SINGLE YEAR things get worse. Government gets bigger and more intrusive. More liberty is stripped away from the people. Unjust, incredibly destructive wars go on, and on with no end in sight. The dollar continues to lose its value, and hundreds of millions suffer as a result.

More of the same, working within the system, isn't going to do it. It's long past time to face reality. A completely different approach is needed.

[silverhandorder]

I've been actively involved in the so-called "liberty movement" for 35+ years now. I've yet to see that movement make any significant progress. Oh we make a lot of noise from time to time and express our righteous indignation, but EVERY SINGLE YEAR things get worse. Government gets bigger and more intrusive. More liberty is stripped away from the people. Unjust, incredibly destructive wars go on, and on with no end in sight. The dollar continues to lose its value, and hundreds of millions suffer as a result.

More of the same, working within the system, isn't going to do it. It's long past time to face reality. A completely different approach is needed.

So start something and if it works I'll join you.

Stefbot on youtube is doing pretty good educational stuff. Think of something your own.

[cheapseats]

I've been actively involved in the so-called "liberty movement" for 35+ years now. I've yet to see that movement make any significant progress. Oh we make a lot of noise from time to time and express our righteous indignation, but EVERY SINGLE YEAR things get worse. Government gets bigger and more intrusive. More liberty is stripped away from the people. Unjust, incredibly destructive wars go on, and on with no end in sight. The dollar continues to lose its value, and hundreds of millions suffer as a result.

More of the same, working within the system, isn't going to do it. It's long past time to face reality. A completely different approach is needed.


Empirical evidence abounds.

[CCTelander]

Empirical evidence abounds.

And continues to be ignored. That's the part that still astonishes and discourages me.

[cheapseats]

It's not like we were going to turn this around. If you think that you are not capable of critical thinking.

THAT'S THE WAY IT IS and YOU CAN'T FIGHT CITY HALL and THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO are all part and parcel of the DEFEATISM that is at the core of both Communism and Socialism.




However the only tangible metric by which liberty movement can fairly be judged on is it's growth and acceptance by mainstream. In both cases that is a tremendous success.

Bullshit. Talk is cheap. What does it matter how many more people nod their heads up and down that Government is out of control and that Taxpayers are getting shafted? That is worth precisely whatever satisfaction Misery derives from Company.

In THIS paradigm, yer tangible metrics are ROLL BACK of government, REPEAL of micromanagement, LOWERING of taxes, ELIMINATION of capricious fines, RELAXATION of authoritarianism, HEIGHTENING of fiscal responsibility, PROSECUTION of Elite Criminals, DE-ESCALATION of war.

NOWHERE evident. NONE of it.

[DjLoTi]

I've been actively involved in the so-called "liberty movement" for 35+ years now. I've yet to see that movement make any significant progress.

I think the Ron Paul movement did pretty good. I mean, yeah he didn't win, but I wouldn't say it's over yet. Personally I think it's the best chance we got to save our nation

[RonPaulFanInGA]

LIBERTARIAN PARTY IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS:

1972: 0.1%
1976: 0.21%
1980: 1.1%
1984: 0.3%
1988: 0.5%
1992: 0.3%
1996: 0.5%
2000: 0.4%
2004: 0.3%
2008: 0.4%

When you've been "educating" for nearly forty freakin' years and aren't moving up in the slightest, you're obviously doing a pretty piss-poor job of "educating".

I'm sick of all the arguments about "educating" people and throwing away winnable elections to "educate". As if going down in total flames is really going to make people think: "wow, what a great message that 0.5% guy had!" Most people just think: "wow, he must have been a real kook."

[silverhandorder]

THAT'S THE WAY IT IS and YOU CAN'T FIGHT CITY HALL and THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO are all part and parcel of the DEFEATISM that is at the core of both Communism and Socialism.





Bullshit. Talk is cheap. What does it matter how many more people nod their heads up and down that Government is out of control and that Taxpayers are getting shafted? That is worth precisely whatever satisfaction Misery derives from Company.

In THIS paradigm, yer tangible metrics are ROLL BACK of government, REPEAL of micromanagement, LOWERING of taxes, ELIMINATION of capricious fines, RELAXATION of authoritarianism, HEIGHTENING of fiscal responsibility, PROSECUTION of Elite Criminals, DE-ESCALATION of war.

NOWHERE evident. NONE of it.
Ok guy go start your ACTION party lets see how many will go along.

[Matthew Zak]

LIBERTARIAN PARTY IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS:

1972: 0.1%
1976: 0.21%
1980: 1.1%
1984: 0.3%
1988: 0.5%
1992: 0.3%
1996: 0.5%
2000: 0.4%
2004: 0.3%
2008: 0.4%

When you've been "educating" for nearly forty freakin' years and aren't moving up in the slightest, you're obviously doing a pretty piss-poor job of "educating".

I'm sick of all the arguments about "educating" people and throwing away winnable elections to "educate". As if going down in total flames is really going to make people think: "wow, what a great message that 0.5% guy had!" Most people just think: "wow, he must have been a real kook."

This is exactly why we need to vote for candidates on a person-by-person basis, and not along 'Libertarian' party lines, because as long as it isn't "status quo" there will be no room for Libertarians in the political arena. We need to force the Libertarian platform into a big "R" and ram it down the establishment's throats. Classic Liberal, Modern Conservative, it's all BS. Some people know this, and those are the ones in control. Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Ron himself -- none are perfect, all are a step in the right direction.

[cheapseats]

The facts are that both candidates are against the current wars and want our troops home.

The FACT is that NEITHER candidate was the subject of the thread.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.




Not everyone's main issue is war.

I've noticed.





I care more about not going bankrupt then morality of pre-emptive war. Don't get me wrong I am against both but my priorities are with stopping burrowing that we can never pay back.

I realize that Dot Connecting is not a popular pastime around here but . . . WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE'RE BORROWING ALL THAT MONEY FOR, IF NOT FOR ONGOING WARS? Note the plural.




Last I checked both Schiff was perfectly in line with ending our empire anyways.


The man said that American military bases on foreign soil are LUXURIES that we cannot afford AT THIS TIME.

That, to me, is a TYPE of thinking. Military bases ARE profitable for some. You DO realize that, yes? Moreso are they likely to be profitable to people with Investment Portfolios.





I don't even know how this is at all relevant.







As in you don't like the guy for w.e reason and will distort and use dishonest tactics to attack him.

That you do not LIKE my thinking/beliefs/analyses does not make my "tactics" dishonest. Your defensiveness is making you reckless.





Ok so you think Schiff is a long shot

It's just ME that thinks so, eh? Remind me, what's he polling at?





and that he will be a weak legislator.


I think he is not a Legislator TYPE. Mind, I don't think ANYONE is gonna get in office and, LIKE MAGIC, set everyone straight and ram through heretofore elusive reforms.





Yet you also do not like Rand because he is going for a family dynasty.


Because I do not approve of family dynasties in politics, I do not like Rand Paul? If A, then R?




So then what is your plan?

Hold that thought, or don't.




I am sorry I care more about my self being screwed then other people being screwed.


Why are you sorry? Or are YOU being dishonest?




Now I know foreign policy is tied in with the rest of the platform but I first want to stave of bankruptcy rather than end immorality of war. Maybe you should go to anti-war.com instead?

Maybe you should re-think Interconnectivity.




Disagreement on how to achieve our goals does not constitute avoiding confrontation.


It kinda DOES when there is biased censorship, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'M TALKING ABOUT OUR STEADFAST AND CHICKENSHIT REFUSAL TO GO AFTER WHITE COLLAR BAD GUYS.




As I said before for me all that matters is that both candidates are against war and that I can count on them to bring all the troops home.

Elsewhere you took the liberty of suggesting that my critical thinking is not up to snuff. To avoid charges of Racism, I will suggest that the pot calls the kettle Wrought Iron.




So far nothing shattered my faith in that.

Would anything?




Just because you don't like a particular leader does not mean we are all lemmings.


I KNOW everyone here isn't a lemming. People keep asking me why I'm here, that's one of the reasons. There are some uber Good Eggs mixed in with the Bad Apples. Just like in the population at large.




If you can't find one you like maybe you should lead your self?


If we can agree on nothing else, I'm thinking we can agree that I do NOT have the temperament of a leader. Benign Dictator, MAYBE, so long as you don't countermand me. ;)




Again within the liberty movement you are a huge minority.


That's right.

And the Liberty Moovement is a distinct minority among All Voters.

Ergo, I am in the Majority.




AKA people who think Schiff is backpedaling on anything. The only people I saw come out against Schiff are Anarchists and you. Don't seam like good odds.

Then don't PLAY them. To each his own, yes? But tell me this. Why is it fine for YOU to disagree with ME, while MY disagreeing with YOU is cause for insult unto impolite suggestion that I remove myself from the premises?

[jfriedman]

The FACT is that NEITHER candidate was the subject of the thread.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.





I've noticed.






I realize that Dot Connecting is not a popular pastime around here but . . . WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE'RE BORROWING ALL THAT MONEY FOR, IF NOT FOR ONGOING WARS? Note the plural.





The man said that American military bases on foreign soil are LUXURIES that we cannot afford AT THIS TIME.

That, to me, is a TYPE of thinking. Military bases ARE profitable for some. You DO realize that, yes? Moreso are they likely to be profitable to people with Investment Portfolios.













That you do not LIKE my thinking/beliefs/analyses does not make my "tactics" dishonest. Your defensiveness is making you reckless.






It's just ME that thinks so, eh? Remind me, what's he polling at?






I think he is not a Legislator TYPE. Mind, I don't think ANYONE is gonna get in office and, LIKE MAGIC, set everyone straight and ram through heretofore elusive reforms.






Because I do not approve of family dynasties in politics, I do not like Rand Paul? If A, then R?





Hold that thought, or don't.





Why are you sorry? Or are YOU being dishonest?





Maybe you should re-think Interconnectivity.





It kinda DOES when there is biased censorship, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'M TALKING ABOUT OUR STEADFAST AND CHICKENSHIT REFUSAL TO GO AFTER WHITE COLLAR BAD GUYS.





Elsewhere you took the liberty of suggesting that my critical thinking is not up to snuff. To avoid charges of Racism, I will suggest that the pot calls the kettle Wrought Iron.





Would anything?





I KNOW everyone here isn't a lemming. People keep asking me why I'm here, that's one of the reasons. There are some uber Good Eggs mixed in with the Bad Apples. Just like in the population at large.





If we can agree on nothing else, I'm thinking we can agree that I do NOT have the temperament of a leader. Benign Dictator, MAYBE, so long as you don't countermand me. ;)





That's right.

And the Liberty Moovement is a distinct minority among All Voters.

Ergo, I am in the Majority.





Then don't PLAY them. To each his own, yes? But tell me this. Why is it fine for YOU to disagree with ME, while MY disagreeing with YOU is cause for insult unto impolite suggestion that I remove myself from the premises?

Best retorts ever---mindbending!

[SimpleName]

Anyone sick of the anarchy vs libertarian arguments? Making it worse, it barely applies to this thread. Why would anarchy come up when we are talking about electing government officials? I don't think it is really even needed, since many members (probably most) seem to support voluntary government. Anarchists could have their land, but those of us who prefer government could have our land. I think both sides support this idea and yet we still have rumbles, even in threads where it is unwarranted.

I personally hate the non-compromise strategy. Just stick to principle and trust. If somebody appears to be telling the truth and is right with you on the vast majority of issues, support him/her. That's all. This has been made rather complicated.

[silverhandorder]

The FACT is that NEITHER candidate was the subject of the thread.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

However my reply to you was when you were bashing Schiff.



I realize that Dot Connecting is not a popular pastime around here but . . . WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE'RE BORROWING ALL THAT MONEY FOR, IF NOT FOR ONGOING WARS? Note the plural.
I last I checked it was not only wars. It also being used to support a huge federal work force and huge entitlements.

Last I checked Schiff was also against war spending.

I know perfectly well that war is tied in with a lot of ills in our government, however this is not about pro war person being found out. It is about a pro liberty candidate willing to bomb Iran if it is a credible threat to us. Like for instance Iranian president saying they will nuke us with their nukes. Last I checked his last statement on this is that he does not want to bomb Iran.


The man said that American military bases on foreign soil are LUXURIES that we cannot afford AT THIS TIME.

And he was perfectly right. Even if we take the worst case scenario and say Schiff would be perfectly fine with waging war if it was funded voluntarily he is still better then 99% of current politicians. For one I know that atleast he will not wage a war if we are near bankruptcy.

As I pointed out and you agreed not all of us here are moral do gooders. We are first looking out after our back and then after some people half a world away.


That, to me, is a TYPE of thinking. Military bases ARE profitable for some. You DO realize that, yes? Moreso are they likely to be profitable to people with Investment Portfolios.


Well this has nothing to do with anything. Again keeping the worst case scenario in mind, which many here disagree with your interpretation of what he said, it would not matter if the military bases are profitable or not since Schiff according to your interpretation considers them a luxury.


That you do not LIKE my thinking/beliefs/analyses does not make my "tactics" dishonest. Your defensiveness is making you reckless.

I could care less about your views. I rather care about anyone else reading this thread and listening to your distortions if in fact you are distorting the truth. Otherwise you are clueless.


It's just ME that thinks so, eh? Remind me, what's he polling at?

Among the liberty movement. He would be polling much higher if he would be pro war completely and hardcore fiscal conservative. It honestly does no good to him at all to go against republican part if all he is after is power.



I think he is not a Legislator TYPE. Mind, I don't think ANYONE is gonna get in office and, LIKE MAGIC, set everyone straight and ram through heretofore elusive reforms.

Well good for you. I think that is rather a weak excuse. Create a separate thread about not participating in politics. I doubt you are convince many people who are here exactly because they do want to participate in politics.


Because I do not approve of family dynasties in politics, I do not like Rand Paul? If A, then R?

Forgive me if I am wrong.


Why are you sorry? Or are YOU being dishonest?

"I wish I could help you in this but I can't" = "I am sorry but"

As I pointed out I don't want to blow up innocent people either. It's called priorities. In any case that would only be true if your interpretation of his words was in fact correct. I doubt you will find many who would agree with you.




Maybe you should re-think Interconnectivity.

I think I already covered this how I have priorities? Plus how Schiff is Anti war.




It kinda DOES when there is biased censorship, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'M TALKING ABOUT OUR STEADFAST AND CHICKENSHIT REFUSAL TO GO AFTER WHITE COLLAR BAD GUYS.

So you want to revolt? I don't understand your problem. As I said many of us have different priorities. I want liberty candidates in congress. You are starting to want white collar crimes persecuted. It's not like I don't want that I just don't got the time to research that plus research all the bad shit happening to us financially.



Elsewhere you took the liberty of suggesting that my critical thinking is not up to snuff. To avoid charges of Racism, I will suggest that the pot calls the kettle Wrought Iron.

That I have faith in the two men based on what I know about them. Yeah... You can say I am not capable of critical thinking but ultimately the person reading our conversation will be the judge.

Where at all does the racist charge come from tho? :eek:


Would anything?

Yes find me a quote where he says he wants to continue our current war.


I KNOW everyone here isn't a lemming. People keep asking me why I'm here, that's one of the reasons. There are some uber Good Eggs mixed in with the Bad Apples. Just like in the population at large.


I don't know what this means but I will take this as an opportunity to say that even though we might have exchanged insults that I do not hate you and I do not think you are a bad guy. You just rub me the wrong way when you constantly talk down Schiff.

Hopefully you will come around.



If we can agree on nothing else, I'm thinking we can agree that I do NOT have the temperament of a leader. Benign Dictator, MAYBE, so long as you don't countermand me. ;)


Pshhh I would be a dicatator too.



That's right.

And the Liberty Moovement is a distinct minority among All Voters.

Ergo, I am in the Majority.

Depends I wonder if we had an informal poll taken here on Schiff.




Then don't PLAY them. To each his own, yes? But tell me this. Why is it fine for YOU to disagree with ME, while MY disagreeing with YOU is cause for insult unto impolite suggestion that I remove myself from the premises?

You can disagree all you want but this is a political forum after all. People here are interested in pushing candidates and as I said before your interpretation of what Schiff said takes leaps in logic. The man when ever the subject came up always talks non intervention. One time he has to talk to a voter that he is not sure of what the voters stance is he takes it slow. As soon as he finds out about the video he right away makes a comment clarifying his position.

You seem to come off like you don't think any candidate is worth his shit, at least the ones most of us are perfectly willing to push. If so maybe you should post in other sections of the forum that are more geared towards philosophy.

Again as I said before show me either Rand or Schiff suggesting we need to keep basses going for my faith in them to be shaken.

[PreDeadMan]

would anybody here support a hybrid of different governments implented in each sections of the usa?Let the anarchist live in their section, the unlimited government people, the minarchists, etc... you get my point let people pick and choose what kind of political system they want to live in or if none!... dedicate several states to them or whatever i'm sure you all get my drift

[PreDeadMan]

oh... and HAPPY NEW YEAR!...

[cheapseats]

As I pointed out and you agreed not all of us here are moral do gooders. We are first looking out after our back and then after some people half a world away.

HELLO? There is not half-a-world but a WORLD of difference between not extending charity willy nilly AND BLOWING OTHER PEOPLE TO SMITHEREENS.





...Schiff according to your interpretation considers them a luxury.


PETER SCHIFF SAID, CONCURRENT WITH HIS SENATE BID ANNOUNCEMENT, THAT OVERSEAS AMERICAN MILITARY BASES ARE LUXURIES THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD AT THIS TIME.

Military bases are EXTREMELY lucrative for a Few and wildly expensive for Taxpayers. I'll grant that this Board has more than a few Rugged Individualists who would PASS on Luxuries, thank you very much, but GENERALLY SPEAKING, Luxuries are viewed as Desirable.

Defense contracts, profits, returns on investment, these are quite WANTED in some circles. Whoever the hell's currency it is, there's MONEY to be made.





I doubt you are convince many people who are here exactly because they do want to participate in politics.

I am arguing that that's part o' the problem.





"I wish I could help you in this but I can't" = "I am sorry but"


But you DON'T wish you could help. You are STILL insincere.




As I pointed out I don't want to blow up innocent people either. It's called priorities.


You bet.

I am suggesting that NOT BLOWING STRANGERS TO KINGDOM COME IS RIGHTLY THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.





I want liberty candidates in congress.


Liberty candidates for whom WAR is not a priority? I'm thinking I can't think of a more egregious violation of Liberty than Collateral Damage.




You are starting to want white collar crimes persecuted. It's not like I don't want that I just don't got the time to research that plus research all the bad shit happening to us financially.

In very much the same way that WAR is pivotal to our staggering debt, unethical swashbuckling by conscienceless Robber Barons is at the very HEART of the financial sector meltdown.

You discriminate against Dots.




That I have faith in the two men based on what I know about them. Yeah... You can say I am not capable of critical thinking but ultimately the person reading our conversation will be the judge.


Dear Person Reading Our Conversation:

Take heed. Investing such Faith in HUMANS as to absolve oneself of critical thinking is a BAD THING.




I don't know what this means but I will take this as an opportunity to say that even though we might have exchanged insults that I do not hate you and I do not think you are a bad guy. You just rub me the wrong way when you constantly talk down Schiff.

I appreciate that. Insofar as I do not CONSTANTLY talk about Schiff, I am guardedly optimistic.

Peace.





Hopefully you will come around.

Right back atcha. ;)





Pshhh I would be a dicatator too.

I so seldom have an opportunity to quote George Bush, but it really WOULD be easier.





You can disagree all you want but this is a political forum after all. People here are interested in pushing candidates . . .

I've noticed. Personalities over Principles. Like I said, part o' the problem.

Just so we're clear, Liberty does not equal New Candidates/Different Politicians.




If so maybe you should post in other sections of the forum that are more geared towards philosophy.

Maybe YOU should post in the candidate forums. Politics, Governance and THE FUTURE THAT WILL BECOME THE HISTORY BY WHICH WE ARE KNOWN are grander and more consequential than ANY specific person.

[john_anderson_ii]

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

If we have a disagreement about who owns a piece of property, it's not a police matter.


Are you serious? Of course it's a police matter! If I believe you have stolen a piece of property from me, what am I going to do? Am I going to file a civil suit for an allegedly criminal act? No, I'm going to file a police report so that a criminal investigation can take place. Theft is a crime, and in this area we must differentiate between civil and criminal proceedings. This is where free men need a legitimate, lawful government. I'm sure independent, interconnected private enterprises could work out when it comes to civil disputes, but criminal cases require a specific level of non-personal interest.



It would be a matter between my judicial services, and yours.


In my given example I expressly cited your opinion that you shouldn't have to pay for any judicial or legal services but that's not really important to the debate.



For example, today, many companies work together. In the banking industry, my Visa card works at other companies ATM's, transfers, etc. I can name numerous other industries where this also happens. Contractual easements. It happens quite a lot in the cell phone sector where my Verizon service can call and connect with AT&T and vice versa. It would obviously be in everyones best interest to have fair outcomes, or else both parties lose customers. Consumer Reports, and other independant agencies would rate the quality of service. People would be free to shop around who has the best service and who most closely follows their own morals.


In most laymen cases, it would obviously be in the best interest of the companies involved to have a fair and balanced outcome. However, you are forgetting the select few cases where people of privilege become above law. For instance, in this cell phone-centric conversation, the CEO of Intel, whom has at least one part in every phone, commits a crime. If these companies, who are working together, collectively loose should they convict, or are collectively bought out, you no longer have equal application of the law, and in effect, you have showgunism. Just another classic case of an Anarchy, devolving into a dictatorship. Anarchy cannot exist sustainably because anarchy cannot provide Entrepreneurs with the stability required to perform a business task.



Seriously, you don't honestly believe that some of the smartest men in the world working on this Governmental theory would overlook something that is in plain sight?


No, I don't, and neither should you. That would just be arrogant.




If I was inside their jurisdiction (IE your property) and committed a crime according to the laws of your property (Under their services), then yes it should be held in their court room and under their jurisdiction.


Here is where your idea of government through no government breaks down. If you were inside their jurisdiction? Who is "their?" If you committed a crime while on my property, the laws of my property could be deranged and inhumane, and outright ghastly, and still you would be made to suffer them. You would have no recourse of fair trial, no recourse of equal treatment of the law, hell you wouldn't even have the right to be represented nor to not incriminate yourself.



This is no different than if I go overseas and commit a crime. You don't see foreigners being unfairly handled and persecuted on an intentional basis overseas do you?


Maybe you don't watch enough discover or A&E, but this ignorance is just sick and wrong. People are put to death in Singapore over hashish, tourists are sentenced to 5 to 10 years for public drunkenness in Korea.

The one thing that stems from this talk, and the one thing that anarchists just don't get no matter how the evidence is presented, is one simple equation. "If you don't choose a form of government for yourself, and a way of trading and relating with the outside world, then an outside world will be chosen for you, and they will then tell you what to do, That's the only possible outcome.


Who's going to hire them? Say if they start to steal from others, who is going to pay for their services? No one. So, how then, do you plan on paying them to rampage around for you? If they then, do violate others liberties, thats when your private police and judiciary get involved and protect you, no differently than the "public" police now, except that private police couldn't be as barbaric as they are now because you could simply stop paying them and choose another police department that has better customer service. A wonderful thing about voluntary services, they actually have to provide something someone wants. With taxes, they can do whatever the hell they want and have no repercussions.[/QUOTE]

[InterestedParticipant]

Kudos Matthew. IMHO the most useful and most important post I've seen here in a long time.

Here's my take. First off there must be an absolute minimum that the entire movement agrees upon - kind of a quality bar. The premise is that anything less than "this" won't be acceptable. Now where to set the bar - that would depend largely upon the general political and social atmosphere.

But it's true that many libertarians are ideologues, and some are even staunch ideologues, and personally I despise staunch believers in just about anything, even libertarianism.

I honestly don't think the time has come for libertarianism. The time is coming, mind you, but it's not here yet. The movement hasn't reached critical mass yet. It'll take something big - financial meltdown, hyperinflation - something serious and big to turn "the people" towards libertarianism en masse.

The current state of affairs - politically, socially and especially economically - is not sustainable for much longer. We're just leaving an interesting decade and we have a far more interesting one ahead of us.


Iyad
Why would anyone who believe in individual liberty agree to some kind of "quality bar" for candidates that is developed an arbitrary abstraction called the "movement"? How is group consensus commensurate with individual liberty?

[Pauls' Revere]

The ONLY way to prevent this inevitable slide (if it's possible at all) is to go in with 100% dedication to "pure" liberty and never give an inch.

First you have to get them in there...

I have never understood how people can get elected on the platform and promise of change and reform.. only to go in and within 6 or so months totally conform to the system. It's like they get brainwashed or just give up.

Yes, and this is what will happen to the movement and then we will lose all credibility just like the GOP and Dems.

NO SELLOUTS!

[__27__]

Yes, and this is what will happen to the movement and then we will lose all credibility just like the GOP and Dems.

NO SELLOUTS!

Minarchy! ©

"Selling out principles for political gain since 1776!"

[Vessol]

There are certain key elements in the group belief I think most will agree on.

Free Market Economics
Non-Intervention Foreign Policy
Not Trampling on Civil Rights

I don't care how much Politician A says he hates Obama and obamacare and taxes, if he's for an interventionist foreign policy, I do not support him.

Or Politician B is totally against the wars and wants to bring our troops home, but loves social programs and a state controlled economy. Same thoughts as A.

These really aren't that hard of things to "adhere" by, on many other subjects many other people disagree on, but these big three I think are the key and must be "followed"

[Galileo Galilei]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

You are confusing 98.5% perfect with 30% perfect.

A candidate who is ulra-conservative on fiscal matters, but is pro-war actually produces an increase in spending.

Because the discretionary spending you can cut on domestic spending is much less than our discretionary spending on war and overseas military operations.

And usually those who say they are ultra-conservative on spending turn out to have war as a higher priority than domestic cuts anyway.

[pacelli]

What's with the campaign against the noids? The only people who are going to reject a candidate are going to be the paranoids? What's up with that?

[cindy25]

Scott Brown had to be an exception, because he is the 41st vote against Obamacare.

[payme_rick]

As AF said, over time, and it usually doesn't take all that long, that 98.5% drops to something totally unacceptable.


I get you guys, I really do... I just can't agree...

To the first point... "98.5% dropping to 80, 60, 30 then nothing" does make sense to me and does happen... so instead, we'll let the 30.5%'er get in, so they can go from there to 15, to -15, then -45 then maybe -100%?

There are two problems here: 1. Elected official tends to trend toward tyranny after time in office; 2. Public keeps going along with it...

the solution is keeping the public on these guys (98.5%'ers) asses, so they don't have a chance to get down below 60%... not electing them and electing them again and again, but electing them and gettting their asses out of there...