Am I a libertarian? Is Glenn Beck? Nick Gillespie? Was Ayn Rand? Are you?

[MRoCkEd]

http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2010/06/am-i-a-libertarian-is-glenn-beck-nick-gillespie-was-ayn-rand-or-robert-heinlein-are-you/

Good read.


When the hell did the libertarian movement become more exclusive than the Bohemian Grove?

Devotees of liberty are facing the strongest push towards totalitarian global statism I’ve seen in my lifetime. The libertarian movement is too small, too fragile, too marginalized already for anyone as potentially decisive to the cause of liberty as Glenn Beck, Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein — and yes, me, especially now when I’m working my ass off to produce a movie based on my most popular libertarian-themed novel, Alongside Night — to be treated with adolescent dismissal.

Wise up. Robust libertarian movements have historically been rerouted back onto the Road to Serfdom by far less.

[Slutter McGee]

No, it is not a good read. It is an excellent read.


Think the United States is historically an overall force for good in the world, or have good things to say about the Founding Fathers? Get ready for many libertarians to call you a Neocon, no matter how many wars you’ve demonstrated against.

And God forbid that you have anything good to say about Israel

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[FreeTraveler]

The term libertarian should be a big tent. If you want less government, you're for liberty, and that would qualify.

There are plenty of other, specific words to describe detailed stances. An-cap, voluntarist, agorist, anarchist -- all words with very specific meanings. Let's open the tent and get this party started.

[ChaosControl]

Depends on who you ask. To some here I might not be, most anywhere else and I'm practically considered an anarchist.

Anyway, yes, we need to be more inclusive. We should ally ourselves with as many as we can on any issues with common goals. Many people want less government than now, even some people who may be moderates and not libertarians. We can at least work with them until our mutual goal is achieved. Maybe they will get off the train at that stop, but its one closer station to libertyville than we're at now.

[RCA]

Depends on who you ask. To some here I might not be, most anywhere else and I'm practically considered an anarchist.

Anyway, yes, we need to be more inclusive. We should ally ourselves with as many as we can on any issues with common goals. Many people want less government than now, even some people who may be moderates and not libertarians. We can at least work with them until our mutual goal is achieved. Maybe they will get off the train at that stop, but its one closer station to libertyville than we're at now.

Nice quote towards the end.

[Smitty]

Advocates Glenn Beck, *check*

Inserts Israel into the discussion, *check*

No thanks,.....

[aravoth]

Advocates Glenn Beck, *check*

Inserts Israel into the discussion, *check*

No thanks,.....


http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/2ywv2om.gif

[Dr.3D]

Advocates Glenn Beck, *check*

Inserts Israel into the discussion, *check*

No thanks,.....

A typical purist.

[Fredom101]

"...think the United States is a force for good.."

What the hell does this even mean?
Please explain how government or military can be a "force for good"?

[haaaylee]

I don't like articles where people whine...

[Elwar]

When a libertarian acts like they agree with you and then when a crucial time comes along where a libertarian has a chance to get into office and you use your vast influence (gained by acting like you're a libertarian) to smear that libertarian candidate, should you still be considered a libertarian?

[MelissaWV]

I think some people get their online forum-speak confused with real life.

On the forums, we often talk about ideals. Should, would, could... but is? "Is" is often left out. Yes, we'd all like our ideal world immediately, and most of us think our ideal world would even allow for others to approach their ideals, too. I'd love to snap my fingers and have oodles of Government organizations vanish. I'd like us to at least find ourselves back to a Constitutional minimum of Government, and then I'd like the national Legislative Branch to do very, very little. I would love it if the states had variations on the same very minimal codes of conduct that their constituents want and debate often. I'd be giddy if laws and attitudes changed far more easily, rather than a law getting on the books and being allowed to grow stale and dusty with time (and frayed from overenforcement), and for people to grow so accustomed to the law they are afraid of life without it.

That's not going to happen.

It's not. It's not. It's not.

The way to peel away each layer of this nasty mess is to work people into the system who'd like to see it weakened. Are we even to that point? Be honest. This country is on the wrong track running at breakneck speed with its eyes closed and its hands over its ears, singing "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" straight towards a not-distant-enough brick wall. Seriously. If we're being realistic, we should be trying to slow this damned train down and then, THEN, trying to reverse course. Locally, we should be safeguarding those pockets of liberty we can find, and nurturing them. We should be installing people into positions of power NOT because they are perfect, but because they're going to slow the bleeding. Could the whole thing collapse under its own weight any day? Sure! Should we bet on it? Should we all sit around debating with our thumbs up our butts and pointing whatever fingers we can spare at this cause or that cause and excluding this person or that person outright, waiting for the collapse, waiting for the holy communion of purists to rise up and retake the nation on our behalf? Um, no.

[Dr.3D]

When a libertarian acts like they agree with you and then when a crucial time comes along where a libertarian has a chance to get into office and you use your vast influence (gained by acting like you're a libertarian) to smear that libertarian candidate, should you still be considered a libertarian?

That would probably depend on who's definition of libertarian you use.

[GunnyFreedom]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/2ywv2om.gif


LMAO what on Earth is THAT??? :D

[Dr.3D]

LMAO what on Earth is THAT??? :D

Looks to me like it has very good hearing.

[John Taylor]

"...think the United States is a force for good.."

What the hell does this even mean?
Please explain how government or military can be a "force for good"?

Easily, by acting as it is supposed to, to negatively defend the rights of the constituent members of that government, the states and the citizens of them.

[Smitty]

The libery movement is threatened by those who feel that it can't advocate a "big tent" mentality unless it compromises its ideology.

The current condition of the GOP is due to its willingness to compromise its ideology.

Those who choose to allow the camel's nose under the tent should forget about attaining liberty in their lifetimes.

They will only succeed in continuing to be played for fools.

[Nate]

Easily, by acting as it is supposed to, to negatively defend the rights of the constituent members of that government, the states and the citizens of them.

Yeah, OK. Want to buy a bridge?

[ChaosControl]

Nice quote towards the end.

What quote?

[ClayTrainor]

The libery movement is threatened by those who feel that it can't advocate a "big tent" mentality unless it compromises its ideology.

The current condition of the GOP is due to its willingness to compromise its ideology.

Those who choose to allow the camel's nose under the tent should forget about attaining liberty in their lifetimes.

They will only succeed in continuing to be played for fools.

Some people think of liberty as a firm set of principles and individual rights, which no individual has the right to infringe upon.

Some people think of liberty as a political movement, and are willing to compromise some of those principles for the sake of becoming a bigger political group.

[MRoCkEd]

Anyway, yes, we need to be more inclusive. We should ally ourselves with as many as we can on any issues with common goals. Many people want less government than now, even some people who may be moderates and not libertarians. We can at least work with them until our mutual goal is achieved. Maybe they will get off the train at that stop, but its one closer station to libertyville than we're at now.

I think this says it best.

For instance, we should definitely not compromise on drug policy to get more people "in our movement," but instead of writing off someone who opposes legalization as a "statist," work with them on other issues where they agree with less government.

Likewise, a person may be insistent that we need to "finish the job" in Iraq, but agree that we should bring our troops home from Europe. Instead of dismissing them as "neocon warmongers," work with them in opposing troops in Europe while forming alliances with others who want a withdrawal from Iraq.

[Smitty]

,...and we should work with Glenn Beck to convince him to stop making millions of dollars by being a neocon propagandist whose job is to coordinate the liberty movement into being yet another branch of the neocon agenda.

The author of the linked article can't be taken seriously if he's yet to decipher Glenn Beck.

[MelissaWV]

Some people think of liberty as a firm set of principles and individual rights, which no individual has the right to infringe upon.

Some people think of liberty as a political movement, and are willing to compromise some of those principles for the sake of becoming a bigger political group.

You can't work to instill the former without utilizing the political movement model, unless you're hoping everything just collapses or magically changes overnight, or perhaps that your state/county/city splits off from the USA. You don't need to compromise YOUR principles, but you might need to work with someone who doesn't agree on every point and won't compromise THEIR principles. The horror!

[Southron]

I think the main problem generally arises over nonintervention

And this is a crucial issue.

Can you be a libertarian and support preemptive war?

[aravoth]

Can you be a libertarian and support preemptive war?


http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/rs7j89.gif

[Arion45]

This big tent idea usually includes people who want to use governmental force to control people in some way. This is not a limited government idea. Being a libertarian means you have to have consistency. A person can not advocate to reduce welfare programs and then turn around and advocate for unnecessary wars. A libertarian is not a person that thinks there should be an income tax at a reduced rate.

Where these so called "purists" get offended is when people stop advocating the non aggression principle and self ownership. You want a standing army? Income taxes, governmental education, anything that forces a person against there will. You have broke the fundamental ideology and therein lays the slow creep of governmental power where the country finds itself today.

[Arion45]

I think the main problem generally arises over nonintervention

And this is a crucial issue.

Can you be a libertarian and support preemptive war?

Can you be a libertarian and support a coercive standing army? Which is fed from a coercive income tax that robs the country? Or wars that are funded by a cabal of banks in concert with the federal government to tax the country through inflation?

If you understand the current situation in this country then it is a resounding NO!

[ClayTrainor]

You can't work to instill the former without utilizing the political movement model, unless you're hoping everything just collapses or magically changes overnight, or perhaps that your state/county/city splits off from the USA.

Lately I've realized that I'm not really interested in being in a political movement, just the pursuit of maximum liberty in my own life and those i respect and care about.


You don't need to compromise YOUR principles, but you might need to work with someone who doesn't agree on every point and won't compromise THEIR principles. The horror!

Depends what principles of mine they are willing to compromise, and whether or not they seem more confused/ignorant or flatout evil...

I'm hesitant to work with, help, or even associate myself with anyone who openly desires to initiate coercion and violence against me and other innocent people, even if I agree with them on a couple things.

[Fredom101]

Easily, by acting as it is supposed to, to negatively defend the rights of the constituent members of that government, the states and the citizens of them.

When has it ever done this?

You do realize the contradiction here? Money has to be stolen from people at gunpoint to protect them?

You can't offer protection to someone and say if you don't pay for it I'll shoot you. Unless you're the mafia. Or gov't.

[RCA]

What quote?

I meant a quotable analogy.

[MelissaWV]

This thread has convinced me like nothing else has:

We're fucked.

[John Taylor]

When has it ever done this?

You do realize the contradiction here? Money has to be stolen from people at gunpoint to protect them?

You can't offer protection to someone and say if you don't pay for it I'll shoot you. Unless you're the mafia. Or gov't.

I'm sure it wouldn't be sufficient to point to the United States government when it was entirely funded by land sales and a revenue tarriff, or to a state government like Michigan after the constitutional prohibitions on internal improvements following Andrew Jackson's presidency...

So what you're saying is.... ANARCHY!

[John Taylor]

Yeah, OK. Want to buy a bridge?

Why are you supporting a politician oh God of Purity?

[MRoCkEd]

Please don't turn this into a debate over minarchy vs. anarchy...

The point here is we should be working together to reduce government. In the extremely rare case we get down to just defense, courts, and police, we can have the debate over whether to privatize those.

How about we work together on the 90%+ areas of agreement, and build coalitions with other people on areas where they want smaller government.

[ClayTrainor]

This thread has convinced me like nothing else has:

We're fucked.

Don't let your mind be so easily convinced.

http://www.pulsarmedia.eu/data/media/25/There_Is_Always_Hope_wallpaper.jpg

[Travlyr]

The point here is we should be working together to reduce government. In the extremely rare case we get down to just defense, courts, and police, we can have the debate over whether to privatize those.

We won this in 1994. Contract with America. WE WON! BIG TIME! It didn't work. :(

[Vessol]

While I've come to recognize myself as a voluntaryist, I understand that not everyone excepts my views and that many people are close to me that at this point and time we need to work together and then debate the nuances of our beliefs.

If you're for smaller government in all matters, in individual liberty, economics, and foreign policy, then you are a friend of mine.

[ClayTrainor]

While I've come to recognize myself as a voluntaryist, I understand that not everyone excepts my views and that many people are close to me that at this point and time we need to work together and then debate the nuances of our beliefs.

If you're for smaller government in all matters, in individual liberty, economics, and foreign policy, then you are a friend of mine.

+1

I'd just like to clarify that I will and have worked with many small government advocates, and so far, have had no regrets. :)

[Taco John]

It's true that Beck is opening more eyes to libertarianism than anyone any other media person in our time (with due respect to Stossel who has worked at it longer, but not had the platform the Beck has built for himself). I was amazed earlier this week when I noticed that Beck's book was #1 on Amazon. This could be easily explained by bulk purchases, except that Hayek's book was ranked #4 after Beck had promoted it on his show. I hardly believe his organization was bulk buying Hayek's book.

The problem that I have with Beck is that I expect that when the rubber meets the road he will fail the movement and promote a pro-war statist at the opportune time to do so. Glenn Beck isn’t interested in promoting liberty as much as he’s interested in promoting war, and he’s shown it time and again.

Beck doesn’t seem to understand that libertarianism isn’t about Americans but about human individuals. As a libertarian, I don't see the God given rights of a foriegner as any less than my own, despite my nationality (and despite their lack of understanding of "God given rights.") And to that point, I see collateral damage as murder. I am sorry, but I will not open my arms to people who can rationalize murder as acceptable under any circumstances.

So fine, he is turning people on to Hayek. That’s great. My concern is that he also turns people on to accepting murder, and when it comes time for these roads to fork when he’s faced with endorsing a candidate for president, I have no confusion on which leg of road he’s going to take. And I, nor ANY self respecting, and principle-observing libertarian will or should follow him there.

[Anti Federalist]

We won this in 1994. Contract with America. WE WON! BIG TIME! It didn't work. :(

Happened before in 1980 with Ronald Reagan.

Almost every time a "win" is achieved within the system, it ends up to be nothing but bitterness and ash.

[Taco John]

To put it another way: It's OUR principles that they're going to ask to be compromised when the time comes. You wait and see. It isn't going to be a pro-peace libertarian that Beck endorses. It's going to be a "small government" but "pro war" "statist" who gets the Beck endorsement.

And I, for one, won't be voting for them, even if that means another 4 years of Obama, or worse.

[Taco John]

"In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock."

-Thomas Jefferson.

[MRoCkEd]

The interesting thing is Glenn Beck is the most pro-peace cable news host. I know that's not saying much, but while Olberman ignores the war now that Obama's in charge and Hannity complains he's not militant enough, Beck has specials about how we should slash the defense budget.

But no, we should not blindly trust Beck. Praise him when he does right, and criticize him when he does wrong.

[Vessol]

The interesting thing is Glenn Beck is the most pro-peace cable news host. I know that's not saying much, but while Olberman ignores the war now that Obama's in charge and Hannity complains he's not militant enough, Beck has specials about how we should slash the defense budget.

He's not anymore now that the Judge is on the air.

[MRoCkEd]

He's not anymore now that the Judge is on the air.
True. I wish FBN had more viewers.

[BenIsForRon]

This thread has convinced me like nothing else has:

We're fucked.

Ron Paul Forums /= Liberty Movement at large.

I've canvassed for Dr. Paul, worked with a local meetup group, been to John Birch meetings, and worked with my universitiy's YAL.

In the liberty movement of the real world, there are much more diverse ideologies than you see on this forum. While everyone wants to reduce the size of government, but they have different opinions as to what should go and what should stay. It is very much a large tent. The common ideas are important enough for us to work together. A lot of us also realize that many solutions are at the local government level, and those kind of solutions are palatable to most everybody (except an-caps)

I actually think the anarcho-capitalists have done a lot of damage to this forum, creating an exclusive, absolutist mindset amongst a lot of people.

[Dr.3D]

Ron Paul Forums /= Liberty Movement at large.

I've canvassed for Dr. Paul, worked with a local meetup group, been to John Birch meetings, and worked with my universitiy's YAL.

In the liberty movement of the real world, there are much more diverse ideologies than you see on this forum. While everyone wants to reduce the size of government, but they have different opinions as to what should go and what should stay. It is very much a large tent. The common ideas are important enough for us to work together. A lot of us also realize that many solutions are at the local government level, and those kind of solutions are palatable to most everybody (except an-caps)

I actually think the anarcho-capitalists have done a lot of damage to this forum, creating an exclusive, absolutist mindset amongst a lot of people.

I tend to agree with you on this. We need to find a common goal.....

Can't we all agree that we want less government?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

He's not anymore now that the Judge is on the air.

He never was. Stossel has always been the most anti-war person on the air. Now the Judge and Stossel can have a competition to see who's the most anti-war :p

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron Paul Forums /= Liberty Movement at large.

I've canvassed for Dr. Paul, worked with a local meetup group, been to John Birch meetings, and worked with my universitiy's YAL.

In the liberty movement of the real world, there are much more diverse ideologies than you see on this forum. While everyone wants to reduce the size of government, but they have different opinions as to what should go and what should stay. It is very much a large tent. The common ideas are important enough for us to work together. A lot of us also realize that many solutions are at the local government level, and those kind of solutions are palatable to most everybody (except an-caps)

I actually think the anarcho-capitalists have done a lot of damage to this forum, creating an exclusive, absolutist mindset amongst a lot of people.

Yes, that is really bad. We wouldn't want people to be principled, now would we? Weak-knees statists? Come on in. You would be the kind of person who would berate the abolitionists for their absolutism. Give me a break.

[ChaosControl]

Please don't turn this into a debate over minarchy vs. anarchy...

The point here is we should be working together to reduce government. In the extremely rare case we get down to just defense, courts, and police, we can have the debate over whether to privatize those.

How about we work together on the 90%+ areas of agreement, and build coalitions with other people on areas where they want smaller government.

What is this logic doing here? Its out of place. :)

[Acala]

I'm pretty hard core libertarian. But anyone who will agree with, and fully understand, the statement that the primary job of government is to protect individual freedom, can sleep in my tent.

Still, I don't see how any rational person with any understanding of economics can reconcile continuing to fund our world empire with preserving our freedom. It just doesn't add up.

[MelissaWV]

Ron Paul Forums /= Liberty Movement at large.

I've canvassed for Dr. Paul, worked with a local meetup group, been to John Birch meetings, and worked with my universitiy's YAL.

In the liberty movement of the real world, there are much more diverse ideologies than you see on this forum. While everyone wants to reduce the size of government, but they have different opinions as to what should go and what should stay. It is very much a large tent. The common ideas are important enough for us to work together. A lot of us also realize that many solutions are at the local government level, and those kind of solutions are palatable to most everybody (except an-caps)

I actually think the anarcho-capitalists have done a lot of damage to this forum, creating an exclusive, absolutist mindset amongst a lot of people.

I've been in the Liberty Movement at large. Most of them have more diverse ideologies, correct, however an alarming percentage of those people cannot be found when the chips are down. They agree but aren't as motivated to do something other than show up to stuff. Herding cats might be much easier than tracking down people for delegate duties, registering for the party they need to be in order to support the candidate they want in office, and so on. There are a fair number of exclusionists in person as well.

What's missing, here, is that people are arguing that those who disagree with them aren't principled. Perhaps they are, and believe you aren't? Who the hell cares if they can help you accomplish one of your goals, and you can help them accomplish that same one? No, they have to agree with everything, or they're not allowed in the tree house! :rolleyes: There's something fishy about wanting to make liberty exclusive.

[Vessol]

Ron Paul Forums /= Liberty Movement at large.

I've canvassed for Dr. Paul, worked with a local meetup group, been to John Birch meetings, and worked with my universitiy's YAL.

In the liberty movement of the real world, there are much more diverse ideologies than you see on this forum. While everyone wants to reduce the size of government, but they have different opinions as to what should go and what should stay. It is very much a large tent. The common ideas are important enough for us to work together. A lot of us also realize that many solutions are at the local government level, and those kind of solutions are palatable to most everybody (except an-caps)

I actually think the anarcho-capitalists have done a lot of damage to this forum, creating an exclusive, absolutist mindset amongst a lot of people.

Aren't you being kind of hypocritical? Saying that we all have to work together, and then attacking someone?

[Travlyr]

Some people think of liberty as a firm set of principles and individual rights, which no individual has the right to infringe upon.

I fall into this camp.


Some people think of liberty as a political movement, and are willing to compromise some of those principles for the sake of becoming a bigger political group.

I don't see liberty as a political movement. I see it as a way of life.

[Depressed Liberator]

Fuck this.

[ClayTrainor]

What's missing, here, is that people are arguing that those who disagree with them aren't principled. Perhaps they are, and believe you aren't?

It's not that they aren't principled, it's more that they advocate violating one of my core principles... If someone thinks I should be locked up in a cage for smoking weed, than I would like to stay as far away from them as possible, unless they appear to be open to reason.



Who the hell cares if they can help you accomplish one of your goals, and you can help them accomplish that same one? No, they have to agree with everything, or they're not allowed in the tree house!

This illustrates the difference in thinking, I believe. I don't see liberty as a "tree house" or a "movement" in which people must earn access to. I'm not a bouncer for a group, i'm merely an individual with some ideas and private interests.

I respect every individuals right to freely exist and associate with whoever they want, so long as they do not initiate aggressive coercion against others. If they initiate aggressive force and coercion on innocent people or advocate it without regret or hesitation, I will choose not to associate with them, even when it can benefit me. That's just my individual philosophy though, obviously many people here may not agree with this and that's fine. :)

[MelissaWV]

It's not that they aren't principled, it's more that they advocate violating one of my core principles... If someone thinks I should be locked up in a cage for smoking weed, than I would like to stay as far away from them as possible, unless they appear to be open to reason.



This illustrates the difference in thinking, I believe. I don't see liberty as a "tree house" or a "movement" in which people must earn access to. I'm not a bouncer for a group, i'm merely an individual with some ideas and private interests.

I respect every individuals right to freely exist and associate with whoever they want, so long as they do not initiate aggressive coercion against others. If they initiate aggressive force and coercion on innocent people or advocate it without regret or hesitation, I will choose not to associate with them, even when it can benefit me.

So if someone is absolutely pro-legalization of weed, but perhaps they aren't on board with abolishing the IRS, and believe it serves a rational purpose, even endowed with as much power as it has... you wouldn't work with them to legalize drugs? You'd say "woah man... I can't march with you until you denounce the IRS"? That's kind of the root cause of why things don't get done. There are people who simply will not work with those they disagree with on other issues, even if they don't impact the issue being worked on. You're free to do that, but I will say it again: we're fucked.

[BenIsForRon]

I've been in the Liberty Movement at large. Most of them have more diverse ideologies, correct, however an alarming percentage of those people cannot be found when the chips are down. They agree but aren't as motivated to do something other than show up to stuff.


I don't it's a "chips are down" situation, I think it's just hard to keep any organization thriving, especially in the election off-season, in the case of campaign for liberty. And I don't think any person of a certain ideology is less likely to stick around in the long run. As long as the group sticks together and remains active, they will build.


Aren't you being kind of hypocritical? Saying that we all have to work together, and then attacking someone?

I've worked with some an-caps, but they aren't exclusionary like the ones here. They don't call people statists who aren't 100% lasseiz-faire like themselves. They enjoy the late night discussions, but realize at the end of the day that none of us has all the answers.

[BenIsForRon]

If they initiate aggressive force and coercion on innocent people or advocate it without regret or hesitation, I will choose not to associate with them, even when it can benefit me. That's just my individual philosophy though, obviously many people here may not agree with this and that's fine.

I really can't believe you're saying this. Are you not for an orderly-breaking down of the system? If you are, then you are pro-coercion. That's the sad truth. Most of us are pro-coercion. Tariffs are coercion, sales taxes are coercion.

According to your logic, we should abolish every single aspect of the government tomorrow, and try our best to set up a completely voluntary system the next day. You apparently won't settle for anything less.

Get real dude, you're gonna have to compromise. Work with us.

[ClayTrainor]

So if someone is absolutely pro-legalization of weed, but perhaps they aren't on board with abolishing the IRS, and believe it serves a rational purpose, even endowed with as much power as it has... you wouldn't work with them to legalize drugs?

Perhaps, but I don't really see a rational solution to the drug war without abolishing the current tax code that finances it.


You'd say "woah man... I can't march with you until you denounce the IRS"? That's kind of the root cause of why things don't get done.

I see the root cause of all these problems, as taxation. I don't really think taking to the streets and attacking the symptoms of the root cause is the most valuable use of my own time. I prefer to work on things that have a more direct impact on my life.

What would get done, if i decided to "march" with them? They've been marching for drug legalization for years, and the laws keep getting more strict, as the tax burden gets stronger.



There are people who simply will not work with those they disagree with on other issues, even if they don't impact the issue being worked on. You're free to do that,

I've worked on many projects with people I'm not in full agreement with. I simply have my limits.


but I will say it again: we're fucked.
If we're fucked, we might as well give up.

I dunno about you, but I don't plan on that. My main focus is on helping people get out of debt, and producing wealth and income. I have an interesting project idea to help liberty activists earn an income and generate real wealth online, that I hope to launch later this year.

[ClayTrainor]

I really can't believe you're saying this. Are you not for an orderly-breaking down of the system? If you are, then you are pro-coercion. That's the sad truth. Most of us are pro-coercion. Tariffs are coercion, sales taxes are coercion.

Most of you? Apparently you haven't been reading much here lately. Even a good chunk of minarchists specifically state "voluntary tax" when talking about taxation. Coercion is not compatible with liberty, and most people here are hesitant to accept such a position when confronted. I realize that there are plenty of exceptions.

I simply do not validate the use of coercion and force against innocent people, as a rational solution to anything. You obviously disagree.



According to your logic, we should abolish every single aspect of the government tomorrow, and try our best to set up a completely voluntary system the next day. You apparently won't settle for anything less.


The world isn't mine to dictate such behavior, but yes, that is what I would prefer. I do not see the initiation of coercion as a rational solution, but an action that naturally produces corruption and inefficiency.



Get real dude, you're gonna have to compromise. Work with us.

Sorry buddy, I won't play your political games. I'll work in my own way. :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I really can't believe you're saying this. Are you not for an orderly-breaking down of the system? If you are, then you are pro-coercion. That's the sad truth. Most of us are pro-coercion. Tariffs are coercion, sales taxes are coercion.

According to your logic, we should abolish every single aspect of the government tomorrow, and try our best to set up a completely voluntary system the next day. You apparently won't settle for anything less.

Get real dude, you're gonna have to compromise. Work with us.

Yes, if the button was in front of me, I would push it without hesitation, and I would hope all libertarians would. I have a great article by Murray on this subject, and just because an event is sudden doesn't mean chaos follows. There have been many sudden drastic events even in the last 20 years that didn't result in "chaos". For example -- Berlin Wall going down.

As for compromise, eh no. Working on a specific issue does not mean compromise. Our goal should be attainment of liberty in the fastest way possible. In this vein, advocation for anything other than liberty is a setback, and antithesis to liberty, thus not helping to further the direction. I can work with liberals on decriminalization of all drugs, and bringing all the troops home (I'd doubt they'd go for abolition of standing armies, hence I'd stop working with them once the troops come home), etc. As you can see I have not compromised any of my values by doing this. A compromise would be saying you are against the Income Tax, then agree to the Fair Tax. That is idiotic.


You want to know why its hard to keep people around for electoral causes? It hardly accomplishes much, and its expensive as fuck (not to mention only happens once every few years). If you want to get people to stay involved, then become an activist, or create a group of activists like the Free State Project, Free Keene, etc. Go handout FIJA, cop block, open carry litter pickup, volunteer in the community, etc. Inform the masses through action :p That is the surest way to liberty, not writing a check to your local politician....

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I really can't believe you're saying this. Are you not for an orderly-breaking down of the system? If you are, then you are pro-coercion. That's the sad truth. Most of us are pro-coercion. Tariffs are coercion, sales taxes are coercion.

According to your logic, we should abolish every single aspect of the government tomorrow, and try our best to set up a completely voluntary system the next day. You apparently won't settle for anything less.

Get real dude, you're gonna have to compromise. Work with us.

Repeal legal tender law to allow competing currency.
Repeal the individual mandate on health insurance.
Repeal the individual mandate on social security and allow private retirement planning to compete.
Etc... create an opt-out for everything.... yes, tomorrow...

Anyway this grand coalition is not gonna happen until it is a two way street.

Name one market project statists have rallied behind or helped promote to support an/caps?

[Vessol]

I don't think we have to do anything.

The system is killing itself.

[Dr.3D]

I don't think we have to do anything.

The system is killing itself.

You are correct. Democracy is the last dying gasp of what once was a Constitutional Republic.

[BenIsForRon]

Sorry buddy, I won't play your political games. I'll work in my own way. :)

That's fine. As long as you're doing something and spreading the message. I think you're being irrational about taxes, but that's another discussion.

The thing is, come presidential election time, say if Paul or Johnson run in 2012, we're going to need boots on the ground everywhere. I hope you'll be willing to help.

[american.swan]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/rs7j89.gif

Cute gif. haha I'm trying to understand it's meaning. Are you just "watching"? Not really participating?

[Anti Federalist]

Cute gif. haha I'm trying to understand it's meaning. Are you just "watching"? Not really participating?

It's a look of extreme incredulity, directed at this, preposterous proposition:


Originally Posted by Rifleman
Can you be a libertarian and support preemptive war?

What better way to illustrate it than this:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/rs7j89.gif

;)

[american.swan]

I know everyone is anti-war or should be. I'm anti-war too. TODAY is the 60th anniversary of NKorea's invasion of South Korea. The veterans who fought in the war and saw people die saw a deserted landscape. Mountains were treeless in places. Seoul was flattened. Very few buildings stood. Veterans return today to see one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world and a top 15 economy who now donates to other nations. The veterans are proud they fought back communism. They are proud of what Korea has done in 60 years under a far more free system than communism would have allowed. Just twenty years of relatively free "business" freedom has transformed China for example. Can you imagine what would have happened if they would have accepted "business" liberties earlier? The point is veterans feel the Korean conflict was justified.

[heavenlyboy34]

People in this thread would do well to listen to Riggenbach's "The Libertarian Tradition". It's a good primer on libertarianism, and you will not have to use so many fallacies if you learn it. ;)

[Southron]

Great picture but that was a rhetorical question just so you know.:p

Neal Boortz calls himself a libertarian and supports the Iraq war.

[charrob]

Am I a libertarian? Is Glenn Beck? Nick Gillespie? Was Ayn Rand? Are you?


http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs475.snc3/26051_109855659028060_100000108791083_247274_80011 13_s.jpg

The above were my results from the Nolan Charts test taken awhile back. That being said, sadly, I don't agree with those results. No, I don't believe i'm a libertarian.

That being said, Ron Paul's beliefs draw individuals from many different political persuasions: in 2008 I realized my world agreed with 60% of his beliefs... no other major politician came anywhere close (except Dennis Kucinich who withdrew from the primaries early that year); and, so, in 2008 RP was the candidate i backed.

So the question could be broken up:



are you a libertarian?
if not, are you a Ron Paul supporter anyway?

[Knightskye]

Glenn Beck of all people should know about groups perverting the meaning of words.

"Liberal" was changed. That's why we're "libertarians" in the first place!

Beck is a conservative. Is that a bad title? Is it an insult?