I Never Meant To Be A Libertarian

I never meant to be a Libertarian.​

This video was linked from the Daily Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cSfotUvjdk&feature=youtu.be
Amazing she stands her ground and she is correct contrary to the immigration check point officers.
In the age of video conveniences, they can't muscle you either like they use to.

I never meant to be a Libertarian.
Why isn't the rest of America ?
​

Moi

 

Libertarians are embarrassing that's why the rest of America is not Libertarian. I would vote for Sarah Palin over Ron Paul or the crazy Libertarians. They have no connection to reality, which is why they get 1% of the vote. Bunch of tin foilers.

 

Would you give one or two specific examples? I prefer to avoid praise or condemnation based on faith. "Everyone" may know you're right, but please school me.

 

Good video. The border guards aren't being deliberately abusive. They're accustomed to being obeyed; they like to think they're more powerful than they are; they're not well informed about the rules that pertain to their job. They're just ordinary schmucks. But that's the problem. When abuse becomes routine in the eyes of both abusers and abused, the system has become corrupt and dangerous.

 

I don't think most people care enough about ideology to know what they are.

 

Not that I would agree with the idea of voting for Palin over Paul, but let me help with your undestanding of what is wrong with Libertarian view points.

 

Yet more proof of your political ignorance and failure to understand the coalition principle inherent in the two-party system.

This is true.

 

There are things people want and need. The question is how best to get them. People can organize themselves in many ways - the different levels of government, businesses, non-profit organizations, informal collaborations, combinations of the preceding. People should be free to choose the method they deem most effective for a given task. You're advocating a loss of that freedom, reasoning that government is always best, and the highest level of government, where there's a choice.

But it's far from demonstrable that big government is always best, even though it sometimes is. Carried to its logical conclusion, you're advocating a totalitarian state in control of every major aspect of life.

Sadly, neither the competence nor the good will of people employed by the government can be assumed. The free market has the virtue of caring deeply whether its products are wanted by the public, and stands ready to change when that ceases to be true. That hyper-sensitivity to the public is what makes private efforts so often superior to government efforts.

Government needs rules to function, but reality is messy and full of special cases unforeseen by the rule writers. That's why whenever there's a bureaucracy you hear stories of seemingly cruel and stupid actions - the bureaucrats are bound by their rules, and must pursue them even if they do harm.

Let me give you an anecdotal example. I met with an administrator of the City University of New York once in the early 1980s. He pointed out his window at workers on the roof of an adjoining building. He explained that a company won a contract to put a new roof on the building by submitting the lowest bid, even though it had no experience at such work. About six months later, the new roof collapsed. A new bid was solicited to repair the damage. The same incompetent company responsible for the collapsed roof won the bid to repair it because once again they were the low bidder! The administrator was bitter, but there was nothing he could do because of the rules. That's the reality of government at work - well-intentioned rules force people to do harmful things. This reality is far from the public-spirited and conscientious enterprise you imagine.

 

You watch too much tv. You have a very Hollywood-created reality. The zombie apocalypse part did make me laugh, though.

 

What a couple of religious nuts do is in no way a representation of the Libertarian party. Also the ocean is one of the must unforgiving environments on earth for land creatures and again small government is not the same as no government. I'm not sure why people can't understand the difference.

 

I Never Meant To Be A Libertarian​

The best approach this election is to avoid labels and consider proposals, history, accomplishments.
There is no more absurd label for Obama then Socialist. Sure he is Socialist for Wall Street but, NOT us.
We have to pay dearly for our ObamaCare.
Yet how many times have you read or heard a rant where Socialist is just dropped like a "given".
Labels feed in to RepubloCratic control.
Try think outside RepubloCratic corporate socialism and Media, Inc. bombs labels upon commentary based on editorials to "herd" voters back to RepubloCratic control.

Let's be smarter then repeating our previous election mistakes.
Forget Paul associated with Libertarian labels associated with images of deteriorated living.
How about
What policy proposals of Ron Paul or Rand Paul are wrong. Without resorting to labels or "everybody".

Rand Paul. First to make the NSA a real issue. First to oppose bombing Syria.
Accomplishments I like without a "label".

Sarah Palin. She is a babe but does not have the intellect or minimal education to be President.
She lacks accomplishments.
See, all the above without a "label".
Try it. Please
And share what proposals or policies of the person, Dr. Paul, you disagree.


Moi

 

I can think of an example.

Immigration: The Practice of the Principle

But let’s assume for the moment that today’s immigrants – those immigrants recently arrived and those who would arrive under a more liberalized immigration regime – are indeed as likely as my concerned friends fear to vote overwhelmingly to move American economic policy in a much more dirigiste direction. Such a move would, I emphatically and unconditionally agree, be very bad. Very. Bad. Indeed.

I still support open immigration. I cannot bring myself to abandon support of my foundational principles just because following those principles might prove fatal. I cannot tolerate state power to interfere with my and others’ freedom of association, and with people’s freedom of migration, on the grounds that scaling back such state power might lead to more state power wielded in other dimensions.

So here we have a libertarian conceding (for the sake of argument it must be noted) that open borders style immigration that libertarians support could allow in a significant amount of people who, as citizens, would be pro-Statism and anti-liberty and would therefore vote for the same. So even knowing that would eliminate any chance of the type of free society a libertarian would want, he would support it anyway because of his "principles."

So, if your principles are not consistent enough that if you support them, it eliminates any chance of having the type of society that your principles support, than I think your principles need a second look.

 

Setting aside libertarianism, what happens if you apply the standard set out in your post to the US electoral system? Democrats and Republicans claim to have different and incompatible beliefs. Yet they both submit to an electoral process in which they may lose. They are willing to let the majority choose, regardless of outcome. Their faith is that the political understanding of the people will evolve with experience, so that if they lose today they may win tomorrow. This is no different than the libertarian willing to allow the immigration of possible political opponents. He hopes that with the experience of changed circumstances, immigrants will in time change their opinions. So Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians share a belief in the supreme value of democracy. They understand that a win isn't a win if it's obtained by coercion.

P.S. I doubt the common assumption that immigrants come here for public assistance. It's hard to emigrate, to leave your home and family and language and culture behind for a strange new place; to endure hardships of travel and spend your pittance doing it . Only resolute and energetic people attempt it, and only for a good reason. That reason is not food stamps. There are plenty of countries with welfare systems. So many people want to come to the USA because they see freedom and opportunity. These things may seem less important to Americans than they are because Americans already have them. But I've heard countless stories of people who came here to find a better tomorrow, and many did. My own grandparents all came here from Eastern Europe. They came because they were part of an oppressed minority in the "old country," because several family members had been murdered by majority rioters, because they wanted to live where they would be judged by what they did rather than who they were. They opened successful small businesses, learned English, and became patriotic citizens. They never took public assistance, though there wasn't much to be had back then. It's worth noting that millions poured into this country before there was public assistance such as we know it now. So I reject the premise that people aspire to come to the US just for freebies. They come for freedom and opportunity, as they always have. Libertarians would not be wrong to welcome them, because they are coming here in search of a more libertarian society than any they've known.

 

Everyone develops differently. I never wanted to be a moderate with collective anarchist leanings. But in the end here I am.

 

That government official's only power is to confirm citizenship.
She protested him going beyond that "power".
If that means the border check point is inadequately mandated, so be it.
Point: Police types can't grant themselves powers beyond their authority.

Bravo to the girl who stood for her rights.
I hope that makes some sense to you


Moi

 

My point is that she can stand up For her rights today
But could not when I was a young man
We have many more rights today Thanks to a number of Supreme Court rulings
And we are not losing our freedom

 

Thanks to cell phones with video capabilities.

Moi

 

We have less rights than Americans did that came before us, and they are slowly being stripped away.


People aren't Libertarian because they would have to actually take the time to learn about politics and government. They're too lazy and would rather watch the news for a bit to have someone else give them their opinion. Two hundred years ago if you didn't understand the government enough to hold a conversation people would call you a fool, today it's the opposite. Libertarian ideas are radical because most people don't know anything except what they've been spoon fed.

 

I voted Libertarian once and will never make that mistake again. Voting for a third party is a wasted vote. However, it has been noted by many people in recent years that there is a growing strain of Libertarianism in the Republican party and we have seen that split in recent years grow much larger. I think that many people with Libertarian philosophies are slowly taking over the Republican party which is a good thing. I predict that by the 2020 election gay rights won't even be any issue in the elections, marijuana will be legalized or at the very least decriminalized on the Fed level and many other big changes are coming.

 

Brilliant!

 

Voting for a third party is a wasted vote.
Oh how I disagree with this phrase. A Third Party vote is most often not to win but an influence on the next election. I say, "2016, Vote For The Third Party of your Choice" as an investment in 2020. Otherwise we will continue to have ObamNey choices brought to us by both wings of the RepubloCratic Party.
Do you understand how "we" had no choice of economic policy between either ObamNey.
Both serve the top. The French and Greeks had choice and Americans did not.
Consider Abolitionist and Prohibitionist were Third Parties and effected the nation. For good or ill
Populist, Grange, Progressives, Socialist were all active Third Parties at a time when the RepubloCratic Party controlled most State houses, locked in by rail road money.
Third parties are the answer when history corners us into too many consecutive lesser of evils.

I remain anti RepubloCratic except if the person involved is
Jerry Brown, who balanced the California budget and created a surplus by taxing the rich
Rand Paul who's anti RepubloCratic credentials are well established or
Elizabeth Warren, whose credentials of going after big business are also well established.


Lastly, I detest the label Libertarian to refer to a Barry Goldwater Conservative. A pre-NeoCon Conservative.
When Conservative meant conservative and strict Constitutionalists.
Suddenly, that is fringe Libertarian. Why not Paleo Conservative ?

Lastly #2 the schism in the GOP is unlike any in recent elections.
More like Paleo Conservatives vs The Monied and the Christian Right, recently a vital force, is on the side lines.

Join the anti RepubloCratic Party. You have to avoid media snips, have a tin foil cap handy if not worn.
Support a Progressive Tax code. ref. Eisenhower Tax Code.


Moi


How about a Tin Foil Cap Party ?

 

Here's what Ron Paul has to say about income taxes (see here) -

"Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.

An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.

To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending."

And also -

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”

I agree with Ron Paul. The income tax, especially the "progressive" income tax, is an offense against liberty and the free market, harmful to our economy, and provides the basis for the over-large government we want to get rid of. "Populists" want the benefits of capitalism with the government of socialism. Such political miscegenation can never bear fruit. People must finally choose between freedom and socialism, which is the opposite of freedom.

Here, for everyone's entertainment, is Karl Marx's summary of the main points of the communist program at the end of Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto (see here). Make note of point 2.

Now why should a Libertarian or Republican go with Karl Marx?

"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."

 

I will never not vote Libertarian again in my life. If the support for a third party keeps growing, eventually there will a third option.

 

What has Ron Paul accomplished policy wise. Not talking about things, but actually accomplished.