How do you think "our" goals will be realized?

[osan]

How is the new land of free America to be won? What are the specifics and on what basis do we think they are going to happen? Who is going to make the moves necessary and in what time frame may we expect to have freedom miraculously dumped into all our laps. What about preparedness for actual freedom? How will the average men of America deal with a sudden absence of chains?

So far I have read here mostly negative about Trump and his cabinet choices, perhaps justly so, but pretty well never with any real substance behind the complaints and never (to my eyes) a practical alternative.

So once again how, exactly, do we all see this as coming about?

[tod evans]

I don't see freedom coming about at all..

Putting different clothes on government does absolutely nothing to change its behavior..

[osan]

I don't see freedom coming about at all..

Putting different clothes on government does absolutely nothing to change its behavior..

A realist. Forgive me, I was addressing all those who have been going on about how everything is wrong with Trump, etc. I would like to know how they see liberty as coming about. If, as with you and myself, they do not see liberty as even a remote likelihood any time in the coming 10000 years, then I can but wonder what they are doing here.

I come for the free beer.

[CaptUSA]

How is the new land of free America to be won? What are the specifics and on what basis do we think they are going to happen? Who is going to make the moves necessary and in what time frame may we expect to have freedom miraculously dumped into all our laps. What about preparedness for actual freedom? How will the average men of America deal with a sudden absence of chains?

So far I have read here mostly negative about Trump and his cabinet choices, perhaps justly so, but pretty well never with any real substance behind the complaints and never (to my eyes) a practical alternative.

So once again how, exactly, do we all see this as coming about?

Did you ask these questions when Obama took office? Seems to me, they're just as relevant now as they were then. If you think that Trump is a more practical alternative to the growing state, I'd say the burden is on you to tell us why - with real substance... not any of that empty hope that others were spouting 8 years ago.

[TheTexan]

I think getting Trump elected was a pretty big step forward for this forum.

Congrats to everyone that voted, especially those that voted for Trump. Well done!

[timosman]

I think getting Trump elected was a pretty big step forward for this forum.

Congrats to everyone that voted, especially those that voted for Trump. Well done!

Looks pretty impressive compared to the rest of the forum's accomplishments.

[osan]

Did you ask these questions when Obama took office? Seems to me, they're just as relevant now as they were then.

Not grokking the question.

If you think that Trump is a more practical alternative to the growing state,

I do not. But so far he is doing marginally better than Clinton would have done, I am pretty certain. No idea how it will all shake out, but Trump is what we have and unless you are ready to start shooting, you're stuck with him. Therefore, why not try to make this disaster of a "system" work in a better direction?

Again, what is the alternative? Give up? I can do that too, because I am rapidly running out of $#@!s to give.

That aside, what's the path forward? That is the question I have posed and nobody has yet stepped up. I am all for full freedom by the sunset today. I am perfectly alright with 100 million Americans dead in 3 months because they are wholly unprepared for actual freedom. I could care less about them. So if anyone has the way onto that path, please let me know and I will jump aboard. Barring that, we are faced with the choice to press on or give up. If we give up, then assume thy pecker in thy hand, beer in the other, and park the tuchus in the Lay-Z-Boy, say "$#@! it", and enjoy the show. Otherwise, I reiterate: what is the path forward? Furthermore, why is Trump's approach wrong? Not saying it isn't, but I don't know that it is, either, the way so many seem so positive about it.

So many seem so certain of what needs not to be done. Fair enough, but what about the other side of that coin? What should we be doing, beyond complaining?

I'd say the burden is on you to tell us why - with real substance... not any of that empty hope that others were spouting 8 years ago.

This has a strawman switcheroo flavor about it. Not sure why you would respond this way. If you don't have the answer, then just say so.

As for my answer, you have read it here many times. Short of having real allies in "government" sufficient to the task at hand, as well as a critical mass of Americans with their heads in the right place such that we could restore and grow freedom through the so-called "system", bloodshed is the only option I see as even remotely viable. Let us consider the actualities:

• We live in a land whose "government" is decidedly against its own people, save that those people toe whatever arbitrary line said government decides needs toeing at any given moment of any given day.
• We live in a land whose people are, on average, either wholly and deeply ignorant of that which constitutes proper freedom, or otherwise decidedly uninterested in it.
• The fight against entropy, which in this case is represented by tyranny, is always uphill, into the wind and facing a low sun.
• Every human weakness works in favor of entropy and decidedly against freedom.
• IOW, the tyrant holds every advantage, the freemen every handicap.

Given this, how does anyone propose this bitch gets saddled, broken, and ridden into town?

I am happy to be proven wrong on every point. Please do so ASAP, if you are able. Otherwise, my questions stand.

[CaptUSA]

Not grokking the question....

This has a strawman switcheroo flavor about it. Not sure why you would respond this way. If you don't have the answer, then just say so.

I'm just pointing out that the middle sentence in the OP was unnecessary. (as with your response in post #3) The new ass in that seat makes no difference to how one would answer these questions. Your tone (whether intentional or otherwise) leaves the impression that the new occupant is somehow bringing us closer to realizing our goals and that we, who disagree, need to pony up. I was saying the burden lies on the other side of the question.

Now, if you want a real answer, here you go: http://metaphysicspirit.com/books/Ho...ee%20World.pdf

[undergroundrr]

Even on this forum (especially?) the goals of individuals are very different. In the end, we respect the goals of each individual. We do however condemn the efforts of an individual in promoting a goal that would forcibly prevent another to achieve theirs. But there are many on RPF who are very comfortable infringing the liberties of other Americans for their pet issues.

In my view, these two problems are the biggest obstacles for increasing liberty -
1. Concentrated (unconstitutional) power in the executive branch.
2. War.

The continuing increase in executive power and the billowing showers of executive orders over the last 3 presidencies endanger every liberty you have. Even if trump doesn't manage to chop us all off at the knees, the next president (I predict Warren) will likely write twice as many as trump.

But there's one issue for me that defines whether progress toward economic and civil liberties is being made. War. Any discussion of increasing freedom on the federal level is a pipedream until an anti-interventionist administration that means it is in office. I'm not seeing that.

[otherone]

So far I have read here mostly negative about Trump and his cabinet choices, perhaps justly so, but pretty well never with any real substance behind the complaints and never (to my eyes) a practical alternative.

A practical alternative in regards to activism, or in regards to proposal of alternative policy?

The individual can only influence his immediate world. Obviously, voting, donating, and grousing can only go so far. IRT the "Liberty Movement", there needs to be a coalescing behind agreed upon principles before specific action can be taken. There are plenty of organizations that have political influence beyond their apparent strength, primarily because they appeal to emotionally charged issues, and more importantly, stay on topic. PETA and MADD are two examples.

RPF, at this time, is rudderless. Coupled with the obstacles that people don't know what freedom is, and don't want it anyway, puts those interested in advocating for Liberty in an unwinnable position.

Dr. Paul was very good at speaking to one particular issue: Restoring a constitutionally-bound federal government. His disciples have abandoned his message. It's a good start. Restoring the authority of states as the primary system of checks and balances.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/about/

[otherone]

In my view, these two problems are the biggest obstacles for increasing liberty -
1. Concentrated (unconstitutional) power in the executive branch.
2. War.

More pointedly:
1) Funny Money
2) Direct Taxation

[osan]

I'm just pointing out that the middle sentence in the OP was unnecessary. (as with your response in post #3) The new ass in that seat makes no difference to how one would answer these questions. Your tone (whether intentional or otherwise) leaves the impression that the new occupant is somehow bringing us closer to realizing our goals and that we, who disagree, need to pony up. I was saying the burden lies on the other side of the question.

I think it is too early to tell where the Trump administration is taking us. I cannot imagine it will be any place that much better, but I have no basis as yet for deciding either way.

Now, if you want a real answer, here you go: http://metaphysicspirit.com/books/Ho...ee%20World.pdf

I've read parts of it. All well and good, but the world is not toeing that line, so to speak. It's not taking that advice. It's not going in that direction. Those who walk the different path are facing ever greater consequences. I carried a gun illegally in NYC for 20 years. Today, I would be hard pressed to be able to get away with it. More to the point is the fact that the act requires "getting away".

Sure, I can be free any time I want. I can also be shot, sent to prison, and so forth. Those are costs to freedom that no man holds the authority to exact upon another, and yet here we are. How do we escape this as individuals, short of parking an Atlas booster up our asses and shooting ourselves to Mars? Harry's solutions are non-solutions for the individual as such. They only work when 100 million of us take them into practice. Even that volume might not suffice.

Choose to stop paying taxes and see what results. Carry that gun openly in Manhattan and see how long you last. Do those lines of coke, smoke that joint, hire that hooker openly, and so on down a depressing and nauseating list and see how well you fare in open public. But it's all well and goody to butt-$#@! to your heart's content.

Nothing of what you have presented constitutes a viable solution, that I can see. If I am in error, please show me the way.

[osan]

Even on this forum (especially?) the goals of individuals are very different.

But the lowest-level goals should be precisely the same if "freedom" is in fact that in which we are interested.

In the end, we respect the goals of each individual. We do however condemn the efforts of an individual in promoting a goal that would forcibly prevent another to achieve theirs

And when the goal is world communism? Is it all good, or are those goals unworthy of our respect?

Just to be clear, I am not talking about people who seek to enter into communes with others of their accord, but those whose goal is to apply force to make YOU adopt a lifestyle in which you have no interest.

But there are many on RPF who are very comfortable infringing the liberties of other Americans for their pet issues.

Par for the human course. What do we do?

In my view, these two problems are the biggest obstacles for increasing liberty -
1. Concentrated (unconstitutional) power in the executive branch.
2. War.

Those are elements, to be sure, but there is a whole lot more to it, the generalities of which I captured in my sweet little list of actualities.

But there's one issue for me that defines whether progress toward economic and civil liberties is being made. War. Any discussion of increasing freedom on the federal level is a pipedream until an anti-interventionist administration that means it is in office. I'm not seeing that.

We're not seeing it, aye, but there is nothing in principle that prevents it. Human $#@!tiness in all its forms accounts for it. I agree with your points, but they cover only part of the landscape. There is lots more to it.

We have everything we need to stop this train from going into the yawning chasm below. Why, then, have we not stopped it? Answer: we don't want to... enough. The smaller the minority of Americans willing to do what is required, the further toward violence they are driven as a necessity to achieve the goal of being free. This is the circumstance in which we find ourselves. People do not so much as agree to what constitutes "freedom".

[osan]

A practical alternative in regards to activism, or in regards to proposal of alternative policy?

Either.

Both.

The individual can only influence his immediate world. Obviously, voting, donating, and grousing can only go so far. IRT the "Liberty Movement", there needs to be a coalescing behind agreed upon principles before specific action can be taken.

Completely agree, and it is not happening, despite there being tons of really smart and determined people seemingly working toward the stated ends.

There are plenty of organizations that have political influence beyond their apparent strength, primarily because they appeal to emotionally charged issues, and more importantly, stay on topic. PETA and MADD are two examples.

And yet none of those work toward freedom, but rather toward the goal of ever deeper and all-consuming tyranny.

Why do the pro-tyranny organizations succeed so widely whereas those oriented to growing freedom such sad failures? Because the former work in concert with all the deepest weaknesses of men, whereas the latter work in square opposition, which is equivalent to working against the human sexual impulse: it succeeds only in limited fashion for limited intervals and then burns to the waterline.

RPF, at this time, is rudderless.

So it would seem, in some capacity.

Coupled with the obstacles that people don't know what freedom is, and don't want it anyway, puts those interested in advocating for Liberty in an unwinnable position.

All of which I have been writing about for many years. I have also taken pains to put to words clear and precise descriptions of that which constitutes freedom and why it is so. I have taken pains to emphasize that freedom is very costly, requiring much of the Freeman. Nobody gives a $#@! about it, or maybe it's just me, someone who apparently could not give water away to a man dying of dehydration in the Sahara. After so much time apparently shouting down a rat-hole, one begins to wonder why he should continue to bother. Nobody, after all, is listening.

Dr. Paul was very good at speaking to one particular issue: Restoring a constitutionally-bound federal government.

And look where it's gotten us. Nowhere.

[undergroundrr]

We have everything we need to stop this train from going into the yawning chasm below. Why, then, have we not stopped it? Answer: we don't want to... enough. The smaller the minority of Americans willing to do what is required, the further toward violence they are driven as a necessity to achieve the goal of being free. This is the circumstance in which we find ourselves. People do not so much as agree to what constitutes "freedom".

I don't agree that we have everything we need. We're really starting from scratch with a tiny minority and virtually no structure or resources in the midst of the greatest Leviathan the world has ever seen.

It's hard to see how motivation to massively assemble and act is even possible among libertarians. I'm honestly impressed by the recent women's marches, as deserving as they might be of ridicule. We'll never do this kind of thing.

Right now, libertarians should be far more incensed, vocal and passionate about how bad trump is than any liberal. But we keep to ourselves and even those of us who are outraged about the liberties trump is attacking go about our business and post on a vBulletin at most.

I think long-term education and indoctrination is the only way we have a chance. More libertarian media, educators, artists, thought leaders. I've said before, the Free State Project should be abandoned and replaced by an initiative to place a libertarian civics teacher in every public middle school in America.

As much as people hated some of Gary Johnson's stances, a concerted effort to get him the publicity needed to poll high enough for debate inclusion would have been perhaps the biggest mass exposure to liberty principles America has ever had. (I know, cue comments about Gary Johnson's lack of principles). It would have eclipsed Ron Paul's Republican primary exposure and possibly changed the American political landscape. Still, they gained some ballot access and did better than ever. Enlarging the reach and effectiveness of the LP is the only vehicle out there for a big short-term change.

Also, 3 or 4 more Amashes/Massies in congress would start to change the overall flavor of political discourse and open some minds.

There is no shortcut to liberty. It seems nice to go back to talking about 1776. The Founding Fathers seized on a great opportunity and got us about 2/3 of the way there under very different circumstances. In the end, what they constructed couldn't stand up to insidious erosion over an extended period of time while people were looking the other way. What we have now with the executive order blizzard, protectionism and overt war preparations are the very opposite of liberty.

[otherone]

And look where it's gotten us. Nowhere.

I'm not so sure. The notion of a federation comprised of sovereign states took about (arguably) 70 years to dismantle. Take victories, whether at the ballot box or within the national discourse, when we can get them. RP awakened a lot of people. As they say, freedom isn't free; the price is diligence. The seeds planted today may bear fruit not tomorrow, but someday. 2+2 will always equal 4, Osan. there aren't enough Room 101s for all of us...

[otherone]

I don't agree that we have everything we need. We're really starting from scratch with a tiny minority and virtually no structure or resources in the midst of the greatest Leviathan the world has ever seen.

It's hard to see how motivation to massively assemble and act is even possible among libertarians. I'm honestly impressed by the recent women's marches, as deserving as they might be of ridicule. We'll never do this kind of thing.

Right now, libertarians should be far more incensed, vocal and passionate about how bad trump is than any liberal. But we keep to ourselves and even those of us who are outraged about the liberties trump is attacking go about our business and post on a vBulletin at most.

I think long-term education and indoctrination is the only way we have a chance. More libertarian media, educators, artists, thought leaders. I've said before, the Free State Project should be abandoned and replaced by an initiative to place a libertarian civics teacher in every public middle school in America.

As much as people hated some of Gary Johnson's stances, a concerted effort to get him the publicity needed to poll high enough for debate inclusion would have been perhaps the biggest mass exposure to liberty principles America has ever had. (I know, cue comments about Gary Johnson's lack of principles). It would have eclipsed Ron Paul's Republican primary exposure and possibly changed the American political landscape. Still, they gained some ballot access and did better than ever. Enlarging the reach and effectiveness of the LP is the only vehicle out there for a big short-term change.

Also, 3 or 4 more Amashes/Massies in congress would start to change the overall flavor of political discourse and open some minds.

There is no shortcut to liberty. It seems nice to go back to talking about 1776. The Founding Fathers seized on a great opportunity and got us about 2/3 of the way there under very different circumstances. In the end, what they constructed couldn't stand up to insidious erosion over an extended period of time while people were looking the other way. What we have now with the executive order blizzard, protectionism and overt war preparations are the very opposite of liberty.

There are opportunities within the zeitgeist. Trump got elected because half the people don't trust DC or the MsM. Now the other half have talked about the merits of secession and tax revolt. These are interesting times.

[osan]

I don't agree that we have everything we need. We're really starting from scratch with a tiny minority and virtually no structure or resources in the midst of the greatest Leviathan the world has ever seen.

Sure we do. If 100 million Americans stood tall with the proper perspective, what do you think Theye could do that would not require open warfare against such a population? We are BORN with everything we need. Information is all around us for the taking. My essays are there, as well as the writings of people far smarter than myself. We have the ability to CHOOSE the right attitude. We have the ability to ACT pursuant to our beliefs. There is nothing stopping us, other than ourselves. We CHOOSE to go along to get along. We CHOOSE the wrong attitude. We CHOOSE falsehoods over truth, not because we are incapable of recognizing them for what they are, but because they do not accord with what we want, which usually means "free stuff".

It's hard to see how motivation to massively assemble and act is even possible among libertarians.

It's hard to see only because most libertarians appear to be that in name only, much like a goldfish calling itself a cocker spaniel.

I'm honestly impressed by the recent women's marches, as deserving as they might be of ridicule. We'll never do this kind of thing.

Because they are marching in reinforcement of the tyranny they do passionately crave. At the end of the day, these people recognize that which will decrease their accountability and responsibility for their opinions, feelings, words, and actions, as well as bring them more fully to an environment where they can disappear in the vast torrents of human activity, taking for "free" ever greater amounts without having to work for it.

Right now, libertarians should be far more incensed, vocal and passionate about how bad trump is than any liberal. But we keep to ourselves and even those of us who are outraged about the liberties trump is attacking go about our business and post on a vBulletin at most.

Why? I am thinking this is more than a bit naïve in that those of a left-bent have "government" squarely in their corner. Those on the right or, worse, of a liberty bent stand in diametric opposition to all the goals and objectives of the globalists who have taken over this land.

My verdict on Trump remains out, but you should at least consider the possibility that he may be the best practical friend that liberty has had since at least 9/11. Perhaps not, but I still have insufficient basis for making a determination. We have at least 117 years of steady creep towards totalitarianism to reverse. I return once again to my central question: how do you see people affecting the necessary changes to put us back where we were 100 years ago. Marches in the face of indifference and hostility is not a solution, IMO. But once again, please show how I am mistaken that I might see my error and correct it.

I think long-term education and indoctrination is the only way we have a chance. More libertarian media, educators, artists, thought leaders. I've said before, the Free State Project should be abandoned and replaced by an initiative to place a libertarian civics teacher in every public middle school in America.

Key qualifier, speaking to "we can't" do it the way so many of the people here seem to think, but rather that this must take time - lots of it - not to mention constant effort with no slacking.

As much as people hated some of Gary Johnson's stances, a concerted effort to get him the publicity needed to poll high enough for debate inclusion would have been perhaps the biggest mass exposure to liberty principles America has ever had. (I know, cue comments about Gary Johnson's lack of principles). It would have eclipsed Ron Paul's Republican primary exposure and possibly changed the American political landscape. Still, they gained some ballot access and did better than ever. Enlarging the reach and effectiveness of the LP is the only vehicle out there for a big short-term change.

Woulds, coulda, shoulda...

Water's past the bridge. What do we do NOW?

Also, 3 or 4 more Amashes/Massies in congress would start to change the overall flavor of political discourse and open some minds.

Speaks to my point of allies in government. A government as completely hostile to liberty as are ours, both state and fed, cannot be fought effectively when the population is as clued-out, apathetic, and corrupt as ours. The worse those conditions become, the less chance there is to resolve our issues without bloodshed.

There is no shortcut to liberty.

One of my central points.

It seems nice to go back to talking about 1776. The Founding Fathers seized on a great opportunity and got us about 2/3 of the way there under very different circumstances. In the end, what they constructed couldn't stand up to insidious erosion over an extended period of time while people were looking the other way. What we have now with the executive order blizzard, protectionism and overt war preparations are the very opposite of liberty.

More like we were unwilling.

[osan]

I'm not so sure. The notion of a federation comprised of sovereign states took about (arguably) 70 years to dismantle. Take victories, whether at the ballot box or within the national discourse, when we can get them. RP awakened a lot of people. As they say, freedom isn't free; the price is diligence. The seeds planted today may bear fruit not tomorrow, but someday. 2+2 will always equal 4, Osan. there aren't enough Room 101s for all of us...

Ron did a lot, for which I am appreciative, but in the end we are in the same place. Same enough, anyway. If 30 million Americans saw the light tomorrow and understood freedom and wanted it enough, it would still be insufficient, methinks. The progressives are now a majority, it seems, and they are impossibly strident in their demands, views, and intolerance.

Imagine, if you will, that a "miracle" happened and in six weeks we were transported into freedom. No more welfare state - being ramped down in 12 months to zero. No more drug war or laws. NFA/GCA/etc. all get the deep-six, bye bye labor laws, minwage, and so forth down the long line to the roots. What would be the result? War. Just look at what the lefties have been doing and threatening because we elected a president they don't want. Imagine what they would do were all the free stuff they think should be available to the world all of a sudden disappear. They would go apey in a big way and violence would become the method of settling the issue.

I strongly suspect there is no way to avoid violence save to cave in to the left. I have no desire to cave.

[otherone]

Imagine, if you will, that a "miracle" happened and in six weeks we were transported into freedom. No more welfare state - being ramped down in 12 months to zero. No more drug war or laws. NFA/GCA/etc. all get the deep-six, bye bye labor laws, minwage, and so forth down the long line to the roots. What would be the result? War. Just look at what the lefties have been doing and threatening because we elected a president they don't want. Imagine what they would do were all the free stuff they think should be available to the world all of a sudden disappear. They would go apey in a big way and violence would become the method of settling the issue.

Violence or no, without diligence there is no freedom. The founders understood this. If it is not fought for, even after your hypothetical six weeks, it will soon be gone. As you've said, paraphrased, man is by nature communitarian. Collectivism is the natural progression. Liberty lovers must always interpose themselves between the two.

[osan]

Violence or no, without diligence there is no freedom.

Of course, and do we have it? It seems not. For ages men have written of man's seduction by evil forces such as the "devil". I think men are the devil who tempt others with pretty lies. They are devils to allow themselves to be seduced by the words they want to hear.

As you've said, paraphrased, man is by nature communitarian. Collectivism is the natural progression. Liberty lovers must always interpose themselves between the two.

CORRUPTED man is the Weakman, an advocate of force against his fellows to compel him to orthodoxy. Corrupted orthodoxy. This is the core of Empire. Lies, corruption, force, all leading to death, misery, poverty, servitude, and true inequality artlessly disguised as its opposite.

[otherone]

CORRUPTED man is the Weakman, an advocate of force against his fellows to compel him to orthodoxy. Corrupted orthodoxy. This is the core of Empire. Lies, corruption, force, all leading to death, misery, poverty, servitude, and true inequality artlessly disguised as its opposite.

I believe all of man is the Weakman. Only those willing to dissect their motives, explore their fears and fantasy, and critique their behavior have a chance to rise above it. Morality is discovered from within, not without. The first step is to discard societal impositions.

[mrsat_98]

I don't see freedom coming about at all..

Putting different clothes on government does absolutely nothing to change its behavior..

It's the money system, fix it an everything else will fall into place.

[Krugminator2]

I tAs much as people hated some of Gary Johnson's stances, a concerted effort to get him the publicity needed to poll high enough for debate inclusion would have been perhaps the biggest mass exposure to liberty principles America has ever had. (I know, cue comments about Gary Johnson's lack of principles). It would have eclipsed Ron Paul's Republican primary exposure and possibly changed the American political landscape. Still, they gained some ballot access and did better than ever. Enlarging the reach and effectiveness of the LP is the only vehicle out there for a big short-term change.

Also, 3 or 4 more Amashes/Massies in congress would start to change the overall flavor of political discourse and open some minds.

I reluctantly voted for GJ but he wouldn't have been effective in a debate. His incoherent liberalism wouldn't be anything that would be worth promoting.

Realistically Trump is governing closer to libertarianism than a Johnson/Weld administration would. Instead of pushing green energy subsidies or a carbon tax or fee, Trump is rolling back environmental regulations and put a strong anti-EPA guy in charge of the EPA. Bill Weld said Merrick Garland was a good choice for the Court and Stephen Breyer is doing just a swell job. Whereas Trump put a strong constitutionalist in Gorsuch on the Court. Trump is about to sign an executive order protecting religious freedom instead of forcing nuns to pay for contraception like Johnson thinks should happen.

I am pleasantly surprised with Trump. He seems to have some good people giving him advice. If Trump does nothing else but appoint two good judges, roll back regulations, and pass tax reform, he will have an outstanding Presidency in my book.

And you already have 3 or 4 more Amashes and Massies in Washington. Sanford, Labrador, Mulvaney (who is now part of the Trump admin as Budget director) Lee, and Rand. I think the future looks pretty bright for liberty if Trump avoids impeachment and total embarrassment. Republicans have a huge structural advantage in 2018. Less regulation, less taxation, good judges, talk of less spending sounds good to me.

[fr33]

The best chance for freedom is to live in or near a small community AND to survive a collapse of at least the federal government; be that through secession of states, nuclear war, or asteroid impact.

[timosman]

The best chance for freedom is to live in or near a small community AND to survive a collapse of at least the federal government; be that through secession of states, nuclear war, or asteroid impact.

and then rainbow and ponies?

[fr33]

and then rainbow and ponies?

No I said "best chance". Utopia ain't happening.