Poll Shows Most Libertarians Do Not Identify As Tea Party

[angelatc]

We could have told them that.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-usa-politics-libertarians-idUSBRE99S03Q20131029


Most American libertarians do not consider themselves part of the conservative Tea Party movement despite a public perception that the two political groups are linked, according to a national survey released on Tuesday.
Libertarians, who generally support maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of government, differ sharply with the Tea Party and religious conservatives on issues such as abortion and decriminalization of marijuana, according to the survey by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute.

The abortion thing is deceptive, as Libertarians don't stand united on that front. And the whole point of the TEA Party was supposed to be fiscal issues. All that other garbage got dragged in by the GOP.

[enhanced_deficit]

I identify myself as a Libertarian, Freedomtarian and anti-oppression, anti-war criminals, anti-children killers.

As long as "Tea Party" keeps fighting SWC left wing of neecons, I'm okay with it.. but I would strongly distance myself from any pure breed Tea Party-Neocon wingers once their infighting with leftist neecons ends.

[cajuncocoa]

The Tea Party got hijacked by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann. A bit of a turn-off for most libertarians, I would imagine.

[jbauer]

Mehhh. I'd say I'm a mixed bag. I'm not as extreme as some of the big L libritarians but the tea party was born for fiscal issues. That I'm completely in favor of regardLess of what you call it.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Tea Party has always been a mixed bag, except for the the very first one for Ron Paul.

[Brett85]

It sounds like they polled Robert Sarvis type "libertarians."

[BuddyRey]

This is news that really shouldn't surprise anyone. The term "tea party" hasn't had any real currency since 2010 except among TV watchers and the dinosaur media who loves to wring every little bit of juice out of an old meme. I think they use it because it's such a lightning rod for criticism and hatred whenever it's hanging over any principled conservative or libertarian candidate's head.

[kahless]

Since there is no official "Tea Party", how one views them is subjective. You may get one Libertarian that is close with Tea Partiers that share the same values while another is revolted by the Teocons.

The media however is doing a great job to shape the of the Tea Party to be solely a backwoods ignorant and inbred GOP invention.

[Prog Snob]

The Tea Party got hijacked by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann. A bit of a turn-off for most libertarians, I would imagine.

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking. Once that Sarah Palin dope ran around promoting the Tea Party, I knew it was going to be a problem.

[Red Green]

They would have been wise to stick to the fiscal message of "Government is too big", but then they stated becoming just another apparatus of the GOP with grandstanding on issues like abortion and immigration.

[green73]

I notice this is on Drudge. Libertarianism sure has come a long way in six years. Thanks, Ron Paul.

[angelatc]

I identify myself as a Libertarian, Freedomtarian and anti-oppression, anti-war criminals, anti-children killers.

As long as "Tea Party" keeps fighting SWC left wing of neecons, I'm okay with it.. but I would strongly distance myself from any pure breed Tea Party-Neocon wingers once their infighting with leftist neecons ends.

Yes I identify more as TEA Party than Libertarian. But in our local group, there were definitely people showing up that brought the social conservative agenda with them. Our local leader did a good job at keeping the directives pointed at fiscal aims, which is all I can ask. People did occasionally get mad over the fact that the was no official actions on stuff like abortion, and some of them eve left. The core group that remains is indeed a local political force, much more so than the Libertarians,

[AuH20]

They would have been wise to stick to the fiscal message of "Government is too big", but then they stated becoming just another apparatus of the GOP with grandstanding on issues like abortion and immigration.

Actually, at this state of the game, immigration is directly tied to the potential size of the government as well as impact of future outlays. That's what I have to chuckle abit when I see noted tax hawk Grover Norqvist pleading for this comprehensive immigration scam.

[angelatc]

Since there is no official "Tea Party", how one views them is subjective. You may get one Libertarian that is close with Tea Partiers that share the same values while another is revolted by the Teocons.

The media however is doing a great job to shape the of the Tea Party to be solely a backwoods ignorant and inbred GOP invention.

Yep, and the intense dislike that the media crows aboutis fostered from radical left.

Look at how many progressives crawled out of the woodwork just to make sure they tied the fictional national movement to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Really, they're not the problem though. The real problems are the self-annointed leaders, like Judson WateverHisNameIs and MaryBeth Somebody. They're the people who *really* hijacked the name.

[angelatc]

They would have been wise to stick to the fiscal message of "Government is too big", but then they stated becoming just another apparatus of the GOP with grandstanding on issues like abortion and immigration.

Abortion I agree with, but amnesty and open borders are certainly tied to a fiscal position. BUt that's what makes you a Libertarian - you're pro-death, and open borders.

[AuH20]

The Tea Party is like any group, including libertarians. There is good and bad. You have Judson Phillips and others who are basically GOP loyalists and then you have the aware people who carried Rand Paul to victory in Kentucky. For example, Ron had practically no presence in Kentucky politically speaking, yet Rand hooked up with the grassroots movement there and just took off.

[angelatc]

The Tea Party is like any group, including libertarians. There is good and bad. You have Judson Phillips and others who are basically GOP loyalists and then you have the aware people who carried Rand Paul to victory in Kentucky. For example, Ron had practically no presence in Kentucky politically speaking, yet Rand hooked up with the grassroots movement there and just took off.

Yes, our local group is 90% to my liking. A couple of years ago they had a Islamic Hate Speaker booked, and some of us pitched a fit. The guy spoke, but it never happened again. Most of those people have faded away anyway now.

I just get frustrated. I get frustrated with the national media who pay any attention to the so-called leaders of the fictional national tea party movement, and I get frustrated with the self-professed "smart people" who fall right into their trap, chanting "Palin/Beck/Koch" right on cue every time the TEA Party is mentioned.

This movement could have been ours, but nobody wanted to get involved.

[Christian Liberty]

It sounds like they polled Robert Sarvis type "libertarians."

I don't choose to identify as Tea Party. I usually don't even use the word libertarian anymore except when asked (I find the confusion of 'libertarian' with 'pro-choice' annoying, for one thing). But when I'm asked my opinion of the Tea Party, its usually "Well, that depends on who you're talking about."


The abortion thing is deceptive, as Libertarians don't stand united on that front

Yeah, that annoyed me.

[Athan]

We could have told them that.
They don't listen.

[AuH20]

Yep, and the intense dislike that the media crows aboutis fostered from radical left.

Look at how many progressives crawled out of the woodwork just to make sure they tied the fictional national movement to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Really, they're not the problem though. The real problems are the self-annointed leaders, like Judson WateverHisNameIs and MaryBeth Somebody. They're the people who *really* hijacked the name.

http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/teaparty.jpg

[Prog Snob]

Change that to Libertarian Conspiracy. Some of the so-called Tea Partiers still want to take our money.

[cajuncocoa]

Since there is no official "Tea Party", how one views them is subjective. You may get one Libertarian that is close with Tea Partiers that share the same values while another is revolted by the Teocons.

The media however is doing a great job to shape the of the Tea Party to be solely a backwoods ignorant and inbred GOP invention.

Some would like to use the term "Libertarian" the same way. You may get one who thinks it means a member of the official Libertarian political party, and another who thinks it means someone who simply means to "live and let live" which includes a life free of government intrusion. And then you have some who thinks it means Glenn Beck. *smdh*

[Brett85]

I don't choose to identify as Tea Party. I usually don't even use the word libertarian anymore except when asked (I find the confusion of 'libertarian' with 'pro-choice' annoying, for one thing). But when I'm asked my opinion of the Tea Party, its usually "Well, that depends on who you're talking about."

I'm not saying that libertarians should identify with the tea party, just that libertarians don't have to take positions like being pro choice or supporting a strict "separation of church and state." You can be a libertarian and support those policies, but Ron Paul doesn't. I don't like when they try to make libertarians look like they're basically liberals who don't like to waste money, because that really isn't the case.

[brandon]

I sometimes identify as Tea Party but usually it's just when I want to argue with liberals and really piss them off.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not saying that libertarians should identify with the tea party, just that libertarians don't have to take positions like being pro choice or supporting a strict "separation of church and state." You can be a libertarian and support those policies, but Ron Paul doesn't. I don't like when they try to make libertarians look like they're basically liberals who don't like to waste money, because that really isn't the case.

Fair enough, and yes, I agree with you.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm not saying that libertarians should identify with the tea party, just that libertarians don't have to take positions like being pro choice or supporting a strict "separation of church and state." You can be a libertarian and support those policies, but Ron Paul doesn't. I don't like when they try to make libertarians look like they're basically liberals who don't like to waste money, because that really isn't the case.
How libertarians feel about the abortion issue depends on whether said libertarian believes life begins at conception. And it's not just libertarians who have that argument; there are liberals and conservatives who are just as conflicted, even if they don't admit it so readily.

[Christian Liberty]

How libertarians feel about the abortion issue depends on whether said libertarian believes life begins at conception. And it's not just libertarians who have that argument; there are liberals and conservatives who are just as conflicted, even if they don't admit it so readily.

All true.

[FSP-Rebel]

Yeah and ancaps don't usually identify as libertarians either, some call them statists. It's all about coalition building and I'm really thrilled w/ Rand's libertarian populism trek.

[jmdrake]

We could have told them that.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-usa-politics-libertarians-idUSBRE99S03Q20131029



The abortion thing is deceptive, as Libertarians don't stand united on that front. And the whole point of the TEA Party was supposed to be fiscal issues. All that other garbage got dragged in by the GOP.

I agree. The truth is that the "tea party" idea started before Obama was president. I also agree with your point on abortion. That said, there are people who self identify as libertarians that are in no way libertarians.

Bill Maher "I'm a libertarian".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al34Utd7ubo

Bill Maher supporting Obamacare.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD21fx_fapM

[AuH20]

I agree. The truth is that the "tea party" idea started before Obama was president. I also agree with your point on abortion. That said, there are people who self identify as libertarians that are in no way libertarians.

Bill Maher "I'm a libertarian".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al34Utd7ubo

Bill Maher supporting Obamacare.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD21fx_fapM

Don't forget libertarian Andrew Sullivan.

[ctiger2]

I've never been to a tea party event and have never donated to any tea party org's.

[compromise]

The Tea Party is part of the liberty movement. It helps us get the senior vote.

Pretty much all the candidates supported by the liberty movement are also supported by the Tea Party.

[Carlybee]

Not a Tea Partier...they are too gung ho military for me...and some are too theocratic for me as well.

[eduardo89]

The Tea Party got hijacked by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann. A bit of a turn-off for most libertarians, I would imagine.

Sarah Palin is the Tea Party. She did not hijack it, she gave birth to it (Ron Paul's spirit got her pregnant).

[Carlybee]

Sarah Palin is the Tea Party. She did not hijack it, she gave birth to it (Ron Paul's spirit got her pregnant).

Yeah...that's why she ran with John McCain.

[DamianTV]

When I first saw the Tea Party movement gaining traction, I decided to step back and observe who else was going to be a part of it. When I saw the likes of Palin and McCain make claims to be not only Members but Leaders, I decided to not join.

Guilt by Association.

That goes for ALL Political Parties, not just the Tea Party. Im sure as every Ron Paul Republican damn well knows already.

[Carlybee]

When I first saw the Tea Party movement gaining traction, I decided to step back and observe who else was going to be a part of it. When I saw the likes of Palin and McCain make claims to be not only Members but Leaders, I decided to not join.

Guilt by Association.

That goes for ALL Political Parties, not just the Tea Party. Im sure as every Ron Paul Republican damn well knows already.


Limbaugh and Hannity are all in now too...they are urging people to join the "Tea Party Patriots".

[eduardo89]

Yeah...that's why she ran with John McCain.

He had to choose a real conservative to shore up the right wing of the party.

[Antischism]

Libertarianism was never associated with social & cultural conservatism until Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard tried appealing to that segment of the American population in the 90's. Their paleo strategy, which even Ron Paul was part of as evidenced by his newsletters and stance on some issues, is the reason why the movement features more libertarian-leaning conservatives and why the Tea Party exists and the two get conflated. Obviously, I'm not a fan of the paleo strategy, and Rockwell has moved away from it after having written this (http://mises.org/journals/liberty/Liberty_Magazine_January_1990.pdf) in 1990.

You could argue that the reason why people think "Ron Paul libertarians" are racist is due to this very strategy. The admiration and allegiances with the American right libertarian movement between racists and white nationalist groups were more evident and solidified only after this era. It's a shame, really. I think libertarians now have this stigma attached to them as a result of the paleo strategy, and it would be wise to distance libertarianism from the abhorrent social and cultural conservatism exemplified by Tea Party advocates.

Obviously this is not to trash on any of the aforementioned individuals since I adhere to a lot of what they believe(d), but I think the "strategy" was a mistake and the movement could be so much stronger without the negative connotations.

[twomp]

Michelle Bachman, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor? These are so-called Tea Party favorites as well are they not? How many so-called "Tea Party" favorites have been elected to Congress and then showed their true colors? With the exception for the "libertarian" leaning Tea Party people like Amash, Massie and Rand Paul, how many "Tea Party" congressmen do you guys here really support? Oh well, what do I know, I think labels on people and groups are stupid anyways.

[compromise]

When I first saw the Tea Party movement gaining traction, I decided to step back and observe who else was going to be a part of it. When I saw the likes of Palin and McCain make claims to be not only Members but Leaders, I decided to not join.

Guilt by Association.

That goes for ALL Political Parties, not just the Tea Party. Im sure as every Ron Paul Republican damn well knows already.

When did McCain claim to be a Tea Party leader?

[compromise]

Michelle Bachman, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor? These are so-called Tea Party favorites as well are they not? How many so-called "Tea Party" favorites have been elected to Congress and then showed their true colors? With the exception for the "libertarian" leaning Tea Party people like Amash, Massie and Rand Paul, how many "Tea Party" congressmen do you guys here really support? Oh well, what do I know, I think labels on people and groups are stupid anyways.

Cantor is not a Tea Party favorite, he's a long-time establishment RINO.

Rubio was elected by the Tea Party but has since publicly distanced himself from it and therefore unaffiliated himself.

There are around 25-30 Tea Party congressmen whom which the liberty movement can work with.

[eduardo89]

Michelle Bachman, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor? These are so-called Tea Party favorites as well are they not? How many so-called "Tea Party" favorites have been elected to Congress and then showed their true colors? With the exception for the "libertarian" leaning Tea Party people like Amash, Massie and Rand Paul, how many "Tea Party" congressmen do you guys here really support? Oh well, what do I know, I think labels on people and groups are stupid anyways.

Eric Cantor is not Tea Party...

There are some very good Representatives who I think identify with the Tea Party movement:

Paul Broun
Jeff Duncan
Louie Gohmert
Tim Huelskamp
Tom McClintock
Mick Mulvaney
David Schweikert
Matt Salmon
Ted Yoho
Connie Mack (while he was in Congress)
Raul Labrador
Kerry Bentivolio
Mark Sanford ("Tea Party before the Tea Party was cool")
Jason Chaffetz


and of course Massie and Amash.

[Brett85]

Not a Tea Partier...they are too gung ho military for me...and some are too theocratic for me as well.

What exactly do you and others mean when you use the word "theocratic?" Was Ron Paul theocratic for believing that abortion should be banned and supporting the Defense of Marriage Act? It just doesn't seem to me like being pro life and pro traditional marriage are extreme, "theocratic" positions. I've met people that are actually "theocratic," who basically believe that our country should be governed according to "Biblical law." But these people are very rare, and few of them are actually members of the tea party. But these people who are literally "theocratic" have positions like supporting the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality, since the Bible, specifically the book of Leviticus, contains those punishments for those specific "crimes."

[eduardo89]

I've met people that are actually "theocratic," who basically believe that our country should be governed according to "Biblical law." But these people are very rare, and few of them are actually members of the tea party. But these people who are literally "theocratic" have positions like supporting the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality, since the Bible, specifically the book of Leviticus, contains those punishments for those specific "crimes."

Even that isn't theocratic, that's theonomy. Theocrats believe the government should be run by the religious leadership, although even that would be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy.

[enhanced_deficit]

Yes I identify more as TEA Party than Libertarian. But in our local group, there were definitely people showing up that brought the social conservative agenda with them. Our local leader did a good job at keeping the directives pointed at fiscal aims, which is all I can ask. People did occasionally get mad over the fact that the was no official actions on stuff like abortion, and some of them eve left. The core group that remains is indeed a local political force, much more so than the Libertarians,

Tea Party confuses me. I have always had a Q about Tea Party, don't know if a clear answer to it exists that you could share perhaps.

Does Tea Party have a stance on Foreign Policy and national debt caused by spending on foreign wars/occupations?
I don't even know if Tea Party supports/opposes "global war on terra", Patriot Act, Police State etc.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Snew]

Libertarianism was never associated with social & cultural conservatism until Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard tried appealing to that segment of the American population in the 90's. Their paleo strategy, which even Ron Paul was part of as evidenced by his newsletters and stance on some issues, is the reason why the movement features more libertarian-leaning conservatives and why the Tea Party exists and the two get conflated. Obviously, I'm not a fan of the paleo strategy, and Rockwell has moved away from it after having written this (http://mises.org/journals/liberty/Liberty_Magazine_January_1990.pdf) in 1990.

You could argue that the reason why people think "Ron Paul libertarians" are racist is due to this very strategy. The admiration and allegiances with the American right libertarian movement between racists and white nationalist groups were more evident and solidified only after this era. It's a shame, really. I think libertarians now have this stigma attached to them as a result of the paleo strategy, and it would be wise to distance libertarianism from the abhorrent social and cultural conservatism exemplified by Tea Party advocates.

Obviously this is not to trash on any of the aforementioned individuals since I adhere to a lot of what they believe(d), but I think the "strategy" was a mistake and the movement could be so much stronger without the negative connotations.

You pretty much summed up what I've been thinking for quite some time. Any official alignment of the "liberty movement" or "libertarian movement" or whatever you want to call it with the so-called "Left" or "Right" has to be avoided at all costs. It's for this reason I'm skeptical of the association with guys like Ted Cruz, or using the long co-opted "Tea Party" label to describe ourselves.

In the case of the paleo strategy you wrote about, the growing liberty movement led by Rockwell, Rothbard and co. made that mistake by trying to align itself with the "anti-establishment" section of the "Right" which includes real wackos like David Duke and all those racist types as well as people like Pat Buchanan (I know a lot of people on this board may take issue with my placement of Buchanan in that group; we can agree to disagree on that point). I sometimes get frustrated reading LewRockwell.com because I still see a tendency of them promoting people that hold that type of mindset.

Attaching to an anti-establishment movement just because it is anti-establishment is a risky and possibly stupid strategy and we still see the effects of that paleo strategy to this day, as you said. I don't want to discount the value that people like Buchanan can bring to the table, but neither do I think that we should turn a blind eye to some of the anti-liberty garbage that they do sometimes spew (like some of their views on race and immigration for instance) just because they're "good on economics."

[AuH20]

I haven't found that to be the case in the libertarian community. The most common (though not universal) scale I've found is that of when the unborn, living, human organism (in its various named stages of development) can be considered to possess rights which outweigh those of the mother. And much of that, outside of the socially and religiously conservative branches of libertarianism, is weighed upon when the living human organism can be considered to be biologically autonomous. Within the socially and religiously conservative branches it seems to be almost universally accepted that the rights and needs of the unborn human organism out weigh those of the mother as soon as it is considered to be alive.

Actually, I don't think that's the case. It's not an 'either', 'or' question for that particular group. Only one individual walks out of the medical center or clinic after the process, and 99.9% of the time it's the mother. Egalitarianism apparently ceases at the birth canal.

[eduardo89]

Within the socially and religiously conservative branches it seems to be almost universally accepted that the rights and needs of the unborn human organism out weigh those of the mother as soon as it is considered to be alive.

The right to life is the basis for all other rights, and trumps them all.

[Cleaner44]

Even though the tea party was born from the Ron Paul R3VOLUTION, I would never identify myself as a tea party person because I think that as a brand is very polluted. I am happy to work with tea party Republicans as we have many common goals. I just don't want to be linked to many of these people that are still only a short step away from their neocon past.

[GregSarnowski]

You could argue that the reason why people think "Ron Paul libertarians" are racist is due to this very strategy. The admiration and allegiances with the American right libertarian movement between racists and white nationalist groups were more evident and solidified only after this era. It's a shame, really. I think libertarians now have this stigma attached to them as a result of the paleo strategy, and it would be wise to distance libertarianism from the abhorrent social and cultural conservatism exemplified by Tea Party advocates.

People try and paint libertarians as racist not because of some strategy 30 years ago that few people have even heard of but because of our principled support for freedom of association and our opposition to actually racist government mandates such as affirmative action.

[Natural Citizen]

The right to life is the basis for all other rights.


Like the right to water? The one absolute thing that life itself is dependent upon? I hear some "people" think otherwise...although these folks didn't travel through any birth canal. I think a penstroke and a piece of paper plays the role of mom and dad.

Anyhoo...I 'm getting off topic. Aren't I?

[AuH20]

People try and paint libertarians as racist not because of some strategy 30 years ago that few people have even heard of but because of our principled support for freedom of association and our opposition to actually racist government mandates such as affirmative action.

I don't understand why some libertarians long for the favor of ardent statists and consequently search for excuses for their behavior when this is none. The left doesn't need Pat Buchanan or any other controversial political analyst that refuses to worship at the altar of social justice, to demonize color blind libertarians. If you oppose the welfare state, you are racist. If you oppose affirmative action quotas, you're a closet white supremacist. The solution? Stop reacting to their pathetic dog whistle.

[GregSarnowski]

I don't understand why some libertarians long for the favor of ardent statists and consequently search for excuses for their behavior when this is none. The left doesn't need Pat Buchanan or any other controversial political analyst that refuses to worship at the altar of social justice, to demonize color blind libertarians. If you oppose the welfare state, you are racist. If you oppose affirmative action quotas, you're a closet white supremacist. The solution? Stop reacting to their pathetic dog whistle.

I didn't say I paid the claims any credence but was just pointing out that basic libertarian principles alone are enough for that crowd, and to act like absent some long discarded "southern strategy" the left wouldn't play the race card against libertarians is absurd.

Yes it should be ignored, anyone swayed by the race card is just using it as a convenient excuse and was never going to come to our side anyway.

[eduardo89]

Like the right to water? The one absolute thing that life itself is dependent upon?

You don't have the right to another person's property or labor, but they have no right to end your life in removing you from their property unless you post an imminent threat to their life.

I still think that abortion in the case of a threat to the life of the mother is immoral, I don't think killing an unborn innocent human is ever morally justifiable, but I don't think that women in those cases should be punished.


I hear some "people" think otherwise...although these folks didn't travel through any birth canal.

I never went through any birth canal, I was born via c-section ;)

[AuH20]

I didn't say I paid the claims any credence but was just pointing out that basic libertarian principles alone are enough for that crowd, and to act like absent some long discarded "southern strategy" the left wouldn't play the race card against libertarians is absurd.

The left loves to impugn one's character as the trump card to any debate. I view the institutional left not as bad people, but rather extremely misguided and immature. Therein lies the difference, when the left beats that dead horse time after time with the accusations of racism.

[Prog Snob]

You don't have the right to another person's property or labor, but they have no right to end your life in removing you from their property unless you post an imminent threat to their life.

I still think that abortion in the case of a threat to the life of the mother is immoral, I don't think killing an unborn innocent human is ever morally justifiable, but I don't think that women in those cases should be punished.

*snip*



I have no problems with abortions in extreme circumstances like the one you mentioned or even in the case of a rape victim. However, I've known women who went through multiple abortions. They would tell me stories of going into a clinic on their lunch break and having the abortion like it was as typical as brushing their teeth. It's appaling.

[Natural Citizen]

You don't have the right to another person's property or labor, but they have no right to end your life in removing you from their property unless you post an imminent threat to their life.



So then if ...oh...lets say Nestle (not sure of natural birth or c-section with nestle) said that I don't have a right to water because I challenge their citizenship and subsequent right to representation, then they have the right to cut me off of water? If my survival disrupts their growth model then I'm terminated? This is a simple growth versus survival model. They want water for growth of wealth. I want it simply to survive. Who died and made them "God".

[eduardo89]

So then if ...oh...lets say Nestle (not sure of natural birth or c-section with nestle) said that I don't have a right to water because I challenge their citizenship then they have the right to cut me off of water? This is a simple growth versus survival model. They want water for growth of wealth. I want it simply to survive.

I don't see how they could own all the water...If they own a lake, then yes, they can prevent you from taking the water in their lake. They can't own a river or aquifer or the ocean, though.

[Brian4Liberty]

There has been a sea-change since the shutdown. The "Tea Party" movement is now defined as anti-establishment. This has pushed out many of the "problem" people in the movement. Sure there is not total agreement on everything, but the Tea Party has been purified by fire recently.

[The Free Hornet]

Actually, at this state of the game, immigration is directly tied to the potential size of the government as well as impact of future outlays.

"potential"?

"impact"?

Weasel words. Make a real prediction. Keep in mind most so-called "reform" is simply normalizing the status quo. I.e., the people they won't kick out simply become the people they can't kick out. No change in outlays. Now that's a real prediction 'cause I'm not a wuss.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Brian4Liberty]

"potential"?

"impact"?

Weasel words. Make a real prediction. Keep in mind most so-called "reform" is simply normalizing the status quo. I.e., the people they won't kick out simply become the people they can't kick out. No change in outlays. Now that's a real prediction 'cause I'm not a wuss.

Legalizing all of the non-citizens who are currently here working at rock bottom wages will enable them to switch over to the welfare state and stop working. Most of them are afraid to sign up while illegal. The size of the State increases. The desire for cheap labor will result in a new wave of illegal workers. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[AuH20]

"potential"?

"impact"?

Weasel words. Make a real prediction. Keep in mind most so-called "reform" is simply normalizing the status quo. I.e., the people they won't kick out simply become the people they can't kick out. No change in outlays. Now that's a real prediction 'cause I'm not a wuss.

More dependents equal more outlays, whether that is SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SSDI & SNAP benefits. It's already a proven fact that retirees are extracting more from SS than they ever put in. We have a near unsolvable domestic dependent problem and apparently the solution is bestow citizenship to more. And note that many of these programs I cited are mandatory spending obligations and cannot be really touched by Congress in terms of appropriations.

[AuH20]

You don't think it's the case that it's almost universally accepted within the socially and religiously conservative branches of libertarianism that the rights and needs of the unborn human organism out weigh those of the mother as soon as it is considered to be alive?

I didn't mention anything about the stats of what's actually occurring coming out of abortion facilities. I only mentioned what the perspective of the socially and religiously conservative branches appears to be - that once the unborn organism is considered to be alive the mother has no right to sever it's ties with the unborn life form until that life form exits the womb via birth. That the unborn life form's right to extract nutrition from the mother and to dump waste products into the mother (upon which the life form's right to life depend) - all outweigh the rights of the mother to terminate that non-consensual bond and the aggression against her.

That was all in response to cajuncocoa's post:

which seems like its intended as a universal statement. To wit, I think cajuncocoa's observation probably applies most to the socially and religiously conservative factions of libertarianism; those who would like the abortion argument to center on the life of the unborn, whenever that is defined to begin.
Whereas, most of libertarianism approaches the argument from the vantage of the rights of a non-biologically-autonomous life form to maintain its connection with a nutrition source and waste disposal system supplied by a biologically-autonomous life form which does not consent to the connection.


And I'm only half-facetiously wondering how far the welfare state has yet to go before human organisms evolve from it that simply bypass my bank account and take a more direct route by walking up to me on the street, wrapping me in their evolved placentas, sucking nutrition out of my blood stream, dumping waste products back into my blood stream, and keeping me from doing what I want with my life until they've completed their use of me.

But I don't think socially conservative folks place an emphasis of the infant's life over that of the mother. The other group creates the false dichotomy that someone has to be sacrificed.

[The Free Hornet]

More dependents equal more outlays, whether that is SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SSDI & SNAP benefits. It's already a proven fact that retirees are extracting more from SS than they ever put in. We have a near unsolvable domestic dependent problem and apparently the solution is bestow citizenship to more. And note that many of these programs I cited are mandatory spending obligations and cannot be really touched by Congress in terms of appropriations.

Before proceeding further, can you show me in the constitution where such a thing as "mandatory spending" is required?

There is nothing magical about it and you're just perpetrating an illiberal lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget#D iscretionary_vs._mandatory_spending

Any congress can stop this at any time. Of course, you give them permission and encouragement to not stop by pretending it is "mandatory spending". Maybe you're ESL and I'm being too harsh because you parrot words without understanding them.

Also, I predict NO increase or decrease (no measurable impact beyond 0.1%) in the Fed budget as a result of immigration reform or lack thereof.

[AuH20]

Before proceeding further, can you show me in the constitution where such a thing as "mandatory spending" is required?

There is nothing magical about it and you're just perpetrating an illiberal lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget#D iscretionary_vs._mandatory_spending

Any congress can stop this at any time. Of course, you give them permission and encouragement to not stop by pretending it is "mandatory spending". Maybe you're ESL and I'm being too harsh because you parrot words without understanding them.



And since when do our elected 'representatives' adhere to the Constitution? This is a contemporary paradigm that I do not endorse, but exists. Secondly, where lies the political will to reduce sacred mandatory spending outlays? Most of these programs are on perpetual autopilot due to past legal obligations that we would need to overturn with a substantial legislative majority. Over 60% of the federal budget is deemed 'mandatory', which illustrates how catastrophic the problem is.



Also, I predict NO increase or decrease (no measurable impact beyond 0.1%) in the Fed budget as a result of immigration reform or lack thereof.

So you're saying 15 to 20 million individuals from a lower socioeconomic strata are close to being potentially revenue neutral if given access to this country's generous entitlement system? Surely you can't believe that when domestic Americans with a higher economic status are currently extracting more from the federal pools than they contribute.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[AuH20]

Point of definition: The human organism requires birth before it's considered an infant.
But I agree, most socially conservative folks do not place an emphasis on the life of the unborn human organism over that of the mother - but most do place an emphasis on the rights of the unborn human organism to maintain its umbilical connection with a mother over the rights of a mother that wishes to terminate that umbilical connection.


The other group?
Is there really only one other group? Can the quoted observation be accurately replaced with the following:


Sacrifice? Does the need of the unborn human organism for nutrition from the host human organism trump the host human organism's right to refuse to supply that nutrition? Analogously, same question as applied to the waste disposal interface.

Is it an act of aggression to cut the umbilical to sever the connection?

Perhaps to avoid an act of aggression against the fetus it's necessary to surgically separate the fetal placental cells from the decidual cells (placental cells containing the mother's DNA). Given the complex, intertwined nature of that interface it's highly likely that some of the fetal placental cells will get damaged in the process. But it is those cells that are aggressing against the host, so perhaps severing them is a measured and appropriate response.

But if not, then maybe what the mother has to resort to in order to avoid any charge of aggression is to have only her own cells severed to extricate herself from the interface to the unborn human life form.

Certainly, at least that final scenario has no act of aggression associated with it. The unborn human life form in the womb is free to continue its autonomous life, for whatever short time it lasts without nutrition and with it's waste material building up in the womb in ever-increasing levels of concentration.

I have trouble understanding this concept of an 'aggressive act being perpetrated', when the fetus was conceived by two willing parties? Hence, the term 'reproduction' being inextricably tied to sexual activity. Am I wrong here? A biological contract of sorts was established as soon as sperm met egg and started the gestation process. I'm not sure how an eviction notice is valid here, when the fetus did not spontaneously wish it self to be and technically was "invited" by the two in question, when they originally commenced with the horizontal mambo.

[nobody's_hero]

There has been a sea-change since the shutdown. The "Tea Party" movement is now defined as anti-establishment. This has pushed out many of the "problem" people in the movement. Sure there is not total agreement on everything, but the Tea Party has been purified by fire recently.

In Georgia, both libertarians and tea partiers are treated like shit by the GOP leadership. The situation has forged a common bond of sorts. I can't talk to mainstream republicans without being written off as a wacky libertarian. But I can crack a beer with a Tea Partier and talk about big-spending RINOs all day long.

[Theocrat]

The modern-day "Tea Party Movement" was inspired by a libertarian:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8

[fr33]

People like Allen West and Sarah Palin are more commonly viewed as Tea Party leaders. I follow neither.

[eduardo89]

People like Allen West and Sarah Palin are more commonly viewed as Tea Party leaders. I follow neither.

I'd gladly follow Sarah Palin into battle against the progressives.

[dillo]

The tea party has been infiltrated by a controlled opposition, theres some good seeds but by and large they are still bought and paid for.

[fr33]

I'd gladly follow Sarah Palin into battle against the progressives.

Beware. She has a record of surrendering. She couldn't serve her term and will never run again.

[eduardo89]

Beware. She has a record of surrendering. She couldn't serve her term and will never run again.

It was the Freemasons-Progressive Alliance who forced her to resign, they threatened the life of her family. It was all a part of the plan to discredit strong, intelligent conservative women.

[compromise]

People like Allen West and Sarah Palin are more commonly viewed as Tea Party leaders. I follow neither.

You don't need to. Sarah Palin follows Rand Paul.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[cajuncocoa]

I'd gladly follow Sarah Palin into battle against the progressives.I saved this for ya, eduardo:

http://s23.postimg.org/i7d1eaf57/sarah.jpg

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[gwax23]

It was the Freemasons-Progressive Alliance who forced her to resign, they threatened the life of her family. It was all a part of the plan to discredit strong, intelligent conservative women.

I cant tell if your few posts about sarah palin have been sarcastic. I truly hope they are....

Anyway on topic the Tea Party is a mixed bag. I dont define myself as such but I support some people who do. Many people have jumped on the Tea Party wagon some good some bad. Neocons, paleocons, some Libertarian-eque people, Social Conservatives, Traditionalists, constitutionalists, etc etc. Politically they are a useful and strategically important ally. Ideologically we have our differences.

I despise people like Sean hannity, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, Glenn Beck, Allen West, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh etc etc. and if they are so called Tea Party favorites then...jesus...they make the Neocons look good. Scary thing is theres support for some of the above on this very forum.

[Brian4Liberty]

People like Allen West and Sarah Palin are more commonly viewed as Tea Party leaders. I follow neither.

Allen West publicly disavowed the Tea Party shortly after he was elected. Tea Party people need to be reminded of that.

[cajuncocoa]

I cant tell if your few posts about sarah palin have been sarcastic. I truly hope they are....


eduardo is in love with Sarah Palin. You have to read his posts with that in mind, and cut him a little slack. :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

eduardo is in love with Sarah Palin. You have to read his posts with that in mind, and cut him a little slack. :rolleyes:

Eduardo is Todd Palin in real life.

[supermario21]

It really depends on what your local tea party is like...some are more libertarian, some are teocon, and others are just shills for the gop establishment. My biggest qualm about left-libertarians and even the Gary Johnson kind is that they're eager to work with the left on say legalizing gay marriage and marijuana but instantly mope and groan about working with those racist tea partiers on fiscal issues. You never heard Ron Paul (a Rockwell-Rothbard coalition guy) complain about working with the theocratic right or communist left, it was all issue based. For as much flack as Ron Paul got (even from the Reason crowd), he was by far the most effective at bringing guys like Kucinich and Grayson into the fold on some issues and Paul Broun on others. We'd get a lot more done if we just focused on issue based politics, teaming up with the right side whenever and not fussing about their overall package. You never heard RP call Kucinich a socialist or Palin/Bachmann theocrats.

[Brian4Liberty]

Allen West publicly disavowed the Tea Party shortly after he was elected. Tea Party people need to be reminded of that.

The story has nearly been scrubbed from the internet. You can find links, but the pages are removed.

Here's a mention that is still out there:


Tea Party leaders from the Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Founding Fathers, and United West are targeting their hero Rep. Allen West (R-FL) and three other GOP freshman for supposedly trading in their Tea Party principles to support House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) debt ceiling plan. Chaffing under his new title of “Tea Party defector,” West scoffed at his supporters’ derision this morning on the Laura Ingraham Show.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/07/29/283019/allen-west-slams-tea-party-for-turning-on-him-that-kind-of-schizophrenia-im-not-going-to-get-involved-in/

[heavenlyboy34]

Abortion I agree with, but amnesty and open borders are certainly tied to a fiscal position. BUt that's what makes you a Libertarian - you're pro-death, and open borders.
Zuh? Libertarians are quite divided on those issues. They don't really define libertarianism.

[belian78]

Yeah...that's why she ran with John McCain.
To be fair, Sarah did hook up with the Tea Party after the whole VP thing.

[compromise]

I cant tell if your few posts about sarah palin have been sarcastic. I truly hope they are....

Anyway on topic the Tea Party is a mixed bag. I dont define myself as such but I support some people who do. Many people have jumped on the Tea Party wagon some good some bad. Neocons, paleocons, some Libertarian-eque people, Social Conservatives, Traditionalists, constitutionalists, etc etc. Politically they are a useful and strategically important ally. Ideologically we have our differences.

I despise people like Sean hannity, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, Glenn Beck, Allen West, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh etc etc. and if they are so called Tea Party favorites then...jesus...they make the Neocons look good. Scary thing is theres support for some of the above on this very forum.

Beck and Palin are close allies of Rand Paul.

[eduardo89]

Eduardo is Todd Palin in real life.

I wish. More like Todd's mortal enemy/nemesis.

[gwax23]

Beck and Palin are close allies of Rand Paul.

Useful politically/strategically. Ideologically they are very different breed.

[heavenlyboy34]

Eduardo is Todd Palin in real life.
He's not nearly as handsome as Todd Palin.

[compromise]

Useful politically/strategically. Ideologically they are very different breed.

I wouldn't say so. They have both said they are influenced by libertarianism or have libertarian leanings.

They are moving in our direction.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You don't need to. Sarah Palin follows Rand Paul.

Please.

Sarah Palin follows one thing and one thing only: $$$$

[eduardo89]

Please.

Sarah Palin follows one thing and one thing only: The Constitution

FTFY