Secrets of the City

My friend in the Capitol pointed her out to me yesterday. I said “meh.”

I still wonder if those smoking ban opponents would defend MY “property rights” if I dumped toxic waste in their drinking water.

It shows her level of incompetency by the fact she’s even trying to do this. Not that I ever found her at all intelligent in the first place.

Well, she’s got the single-issue voters whose only concern is the smoking ban in her pocket. So, in other words, two posters on this site, and six on Craigslist.

Hell Yes! I LOVE Sue Jeffers.

In a day and age where party endorsement means less and less, what does it matter if she is a Libertarian AND a Republican?

The “single-issue voters” don’t decide the endorsement. The state-level delegates in the GOP decide who gets the endorsement in June. She has almost zero chance unless Pawlenty pisses off his party badly in the next month. Very unlikely.

she won’t get it, but bless her charred little heart for trying.

Anyone who thinks she is doing this with the intention of winning the Republican endorsement is probably in the midst of a City-pages endorsed cheap thrill.

She is doing this to piss on his leg in a public manner. No more, no less.

But the Republicans are so afraid of hearing bad news, she probably won’t get the chance.

Well, I’ve heard a lot of talk about Sue not being serious in seeking the GOP endorsement. Some have irresponsibly characterized it as a “publicity stunt,” but I am a Republican delegate, and I assure you, we are taking Sue’s candidacy quite seriously. Despite the best efforts of the party poo-bahs to shut Jeffers out, the grassroots of the party have been rallying to let her speak. She will be appearing at several GOP Congressional District conventions in May. I personally know several other delegates who ARE mad enough at Pawlenty to pass him over for endorsement.

Dan-

AFAIK the “grassroots of the [Republican] party” isn’t really viable against the rest of the GOP. Having a protest vote against Pawlenty by voting Sue doesn’t do too much good for anyone unless you just want to hand the governorship to the DFL.

-Aaron

“I still wonder if those smoking ban opponents would defend MY ‘property rights’ if I dumped toxic waste in their drinking water.”

The analogy would be correct if smoking ban opponents were dumping toxic waste in their own drinking water.

…and their place of business.

Ha ha! Not that I’d ever vote for a spoiled brat libertarian anyway, but Jeffers lost my interest yesterday on Midday when she actually used the phrase “give them a hand up, not a hand out.” That’s funny stuff right there…

Dudeman: the analogy is correct — just because I’m dumping it down my well, that doesn’t mean I’m not tainting their drinking water.

With this so-called “property rights” trump card, I imagine you can make an argument for businesses to call their own shots when it comes to sanitation, hiring legal workers, providing access to the handicapped, and racial discrimination.

Not once on her issues page does she mention the smoking ban.

While this is clearly meant to say, “I’m a multi-issue candidate” the text of the webpage clearly says, “I have no idea what the hell I’m doing.“

It’s about time these crack pot fringe conservatives got the ink they deserve.

There’s just not enough attention paid to conservative politics, thought, and policy in our world today.

Thanks for shining a light.

I think MN Libertarians tend to be bright and pretty consistent. I too have heard MN GOPers say they’re interested in her as a candidate and I say more power to all of ‘em. Who hasn’t detected a bit of truth hidden in all the crap written by Ayn Rand?

This will divide the MN GOP unless they choreograph an event where she “realizes” that Pawlenty really is as consistently conservative as the wingers want. IMHO, though, anything that hurts his reelection chances will be good for MN.

Well, I’m a libertarian who votes republican because when the race is tight, all right-minded folks have to stick together. I like Sue, but I can’t think of one good reason why she should do this.

Politicians have become so accustomed to your tax dollars year after year that they also believe your vote belongs to them too. Politicians claim that you’re “stealing” votes from Democrats or Republicans if you vote for an alternative party. How can someone actually steal your vote? Your vote belongs to you.

Can alternative parties take away votes? In some cases they do compete. For example, the Green Party tends to pull from the Democrats in many elections because they consider themselves “liberal” or “progressive.” Republicans might lose votes to the Constitution Party because they describe themselves as “ultra conservative.”

The only exception is the Libertarian Party. Libertarians are neither conservative nor liberal. Libertarians believe in liberty on all the issues. They believe in personal freedoms/civil liberties and economic freedoms, whereas the Republicans want to control many social freedoms, and Democrats want to control many economic freedoms.

Libertarians take the best issues from the old parties. For example, Democrats and Libertarians may agree on free speech, civil liberties, war, personal choices and privacy. Republicans and Libertarians may agree on free trade, choice in education and cutting taxes. So it is clear Libertarians do not “steal” from either party. Libertarians believe in liberty on all the issues.

Are you satisfied with the status quo? Or do you want real change? What voters should ask is “am I wasting my vote on the old parties?” The answer is YES. If you keep voting for the “lesser of two evils,” you still are getting “evil.” Your vote encourages them to do more of the same. Don’t encourage or endorse their behavior. In order to change the status quo, we can no longer vote the status quo.

Go Sue get ‘em!

Just to put an end to all the rumors and speculation whirling around this issue, Bob from ALAMN is not switching sides and joining the Pro Smoke Party. I haven’t quite decided yet what to do if Sue calls and asks me to be her running mate.

You’re having more fun trying to run her out of business, right Bob?

“With this so-called “property rights” trump card, I imagine you can make an argument for businesses to call their own shots when it comes to sanitation, hiring legal workers, providing access to the handicapped, and racial discrimination.”

Short answer: Yes.

Just to take one of your examples, only a very few businesses would bar minorities if legally allowed to do so. First of all, a large majority of people are decent. Secondly, hate is expensive because the business owner that barred minorities would lose out on their dollars as well as the dollars of people who simply find that policy shameful.

For example, Democrats and Libertarians may agree on free speech, civil liberties, war, personal choices and privacy.

Excuse me? Is being allowed to smoke a “personal choice” issue? Is concealed carry a “personal choice” issue? Is eschewing motorcycle helmets a “personal choice” issue? Because libertarians support the right to do those things and the democrats oppose them. If you’re referring to abortion, be informed that there are some libertarians who oppose abortion because they believe it infringes on the civil rights of the unborn.

Fact is, the democrat party, the party of government bureaucrats and government conrol are the very antithesis of libertarianism. We libertarians fart in your general direction.

Well, she’s succeeded in getting the Republican brass to show their fangs this early. They’re coming off like a pack of rabid country-clubbers growling defensively at the Negro who’s applied for membership — haughty, venomous, and probably a bit more nervous than they’re letting on.

The Libertarian Party has been in existance for more than 30 years.

Do they have anything to show for it?

She hangs around, she’ll get votes that Pawlenty needs. The Libertarians could be succesful in helping elect a Democrat.

Dudeman, you are full of something. If what you say is true why didn’t desegregation happen on it’s own without needing the help of the Supreme Court and the Civil Rights Act?

I think the libertarian party’s belief that taxes are theft is proof they are divorced from reality.

What if that negro is the golf-loving ghost of Kirby Puckett? Huh? Where’s your metaphor now?

I love discussions by idealists! It’s fun to think of all the rich people laughing at your discussions while they buy organs from Chinese farmers, and sip $1000 bottles of wine.

Nothing makes me happier than riding without a helmet while concealed carrying, with a big ceegar between my teeth.

Ahhhh, that’s livin’!

The Libertarian Party has been in existance for more than 30 years.
Do they have anything to show for it?

What does the democrat party have to show for the last 30 years? Their last alleged achievement, LBJ’s Great Society happened over 40 years ago. Anything since?

Well, let’s take a look at the actual accomplishements of our last democratic president, shall we?

Ah, yes, there were a few.

Admittedly, they pale in comparison to the Libertarian party’s, but still, nothing to sneeze at.

“What does the democrat party have to show for the last 30 years?”

Non answer. That’s what I thought. Libertarians have nothing to show for it.

Just to remind you all…Nothing is accomplished without the cooperation of both parties.

What does the democrat party have to show for the last 30 years? Their last alleged achievement, LBJ’s Great Society happened over 40 years ago. Anything since?

- The Clean Water act and about a thousand other environmental laws that protect you, your friends and loved ones.
-Consumer Protection laws of all sorts
- Maintaining a woman’s right over her own body and what she does with it.
-The internet (or ARPANET, if you want to look that up)
- The Brady Bill
-Welfare reform
- Medicare/Medicaid
- The Motor/Voter act
- Peace in N. Ireland (Clinton)
- Supporting stem cell research
- Equal Rights Amendment push

I’m reminded of a good Monty Python quote by your line of reasoning: “All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

And no party is accomplished without the cooperation of my liver and alcohol.

Rat,

Believe it or not, Democrats do vote for Libertarians like my dad and best friend. They agree with Libs on issues like civil liberties, and they don’t like paying taxes, especially for a destructive war.

What have Libertarians done in 30 years? There are more Libertarians in office than all other third parties combined, mainly in local offices across all 50 states. We may not have the higher offices because the two parties keep making road blocks and laws to keep us out of debates and elections. But Libertarians are getting elected more and more, and Sue Jeffers is the next step to Libertarians having more influence in our government.

Mpls Simpleton,

I agree. Nothing can get done without the other parties. That’s why a Libertarian is good because they can work with Democrats on protecting civil liberties, free speech, stopping corporate welfare projects, and more. Libertarians can work with Republicans on school choice, protecting gun rights, lower taxes, etc. Only the Libertarian candidate can find good things in both parties to work on together. Otherwise you have government shutdowns and gridlock.

There’s nothing wrong with idealism. All of us have our own visions. Unfortunately Democrats and Republicans think they know how to run my life. They want to control my income, my body, my lifestyle, my education. The more power we give them, the more power they have to control and force their agenda down your throat. Facism and Socialism are both bad deals and that’s where we are heading with the Bush Regime and Socialist Democrats. They are all idealists as well.

dtester,

When I say “personal choices” I am referring to the the chemicals, birth control, abortion, lifestyles, etc. The traditional Democrat would agree agree with these freedoms, even though some of them want to put a V Chip in your TV, or fight a never ending, insane “War on Drugs”.

Government doesn’t work as well as private citizens making decisions, even if some of our decisions are bad. At least we are free to choose.

Well, if you say so. I actually think socialism is a pretty good deal, and, if you look at the world around us, Ithink you’ll see that countries that have strong socialist parties and have absorbed liberal socialist philosophies into their approach to governing are often pretty happy, well-run places.

But, well, you say it’s just like fascism, and I presume you’vedone the research. I guess I’ll be steering clear of Canada, most of Europe, particularly Northern Europe, as well as Japan, and …

“Dudeman, you are full of something. If what you say is true why didn’t desegregation happen on it’s own without needing the help of the Supreme Court and the Civil Rights Act?

I think the libertarian party’s belief that taxes are theft is proof they are divorced from reality.”

Perhaps you have heard that Jim Crow laws were written into law? Southern shop owners who wished to serve black patrons could not do so under threat of prosecution. Hardly an indictment of libertarianism.

Please take care to distinguish between the Libertarian Party and libertarian belief. They are not synonymous. There is also a great deal of diversity of beliefs among libertarians. Some are anarcho-capitalists who probably would believe that all taxation is theft. Others are minarchists who support taxation, as a necessary evil, to fund what they consider the legitimate functions of government (a number of devils in the detail there).

I wouldn’t underestimate Sue Jeffers. She’s smart, well-spoken, and has got charisma and the common touch. Yeah, she will take votes from Palenty. But she may also take votes from the DFL. The social elites that control the DFL party don’t have a lot in common with the rank and file. Jeffers may well appeal to them more than whatever bland, predictable PC compromise candidate the activists finally agree on. Remember how well Jesse Ventura ran with DFLer’s in Anoka Co? I think Sue Jeffers would do just fine up there….

Has anybody been by the Libertarian Party headquarters in St. Paul? It’s the only place I’ve seen that has a sign saying “We do not ban guns in these premises.” You just can’t make this stuff up.

That’s awesome that the LP has a sign like that!

We should have the freedom to protect ourselves from criminals who have guns. Next thing liberals will want to ban are knives because God knows you might get a cut when cutting those veggies!

A big problem in the Michael Moore Columbine movie is that he didn’t talk about the violent “War on Drugs” and the crime, murder, and gangs associated with it, which is a real cause of social problems.

I agree with you Corey.

Anoka County is a scary fucking place!

Two more links: Star Tribune, Pioneer Press

Me, I’ve been “wasting” my vote on third parties – mostly the Libertarians – for years but somehow I remain idealistic (or unrealistic, take your pick) and hold out hope that eventually the mainstream opinion about how I vote could slide from “protest vote” to “vote for change” if only enough people can get past the notion that they are “wasting” their vote. Seriously, where is the logic when people say I’m helping elect a DFLer or a Republican when I’m voting for NEITHER of them?

Interestingly, my dilemma would come in the extremely unlikely event that she DID get the endorsement, because then I would find myself voting Republican anyway…

On a completely unrelated point, let me remind you that at the very least you have the “small l” libertarians to thank for making it possible for you to buy wine over the Internet and that’s something we can all drink to…. wait… something to which we can all…. hey, gimme another. You don’t have to be drunk to support a third party, but it sure doesn’t hurt!

“We may not have the higher offices because the two parties keep making road blocks and laws to keep us out of debates and elections.”

Then you bust down road blocks. But don’t expect the two parties to stand to stand aside for you. They shouldn’t have to. But the Democrats won’t fight you, because they know a good spoiler when they see one.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. If Libertarians, can’t build the coalitions and can’t raise the money, and do what it takes to win chances are pretty good they don’t deserve to win.

And we can thank those small government Republicans for voting for a new Twins stadium. More Republicans voted for it than against it. Voting Republican is a wasted vote.

Rat,

We do bust down the roadblocks when we can. We usually get on the ballot in all 50 states, more than Perot, Nader, or whoever. We’re organized because the Libertarian message is growing, especially locally where they are getting into office.

The BIG reason why third parties aren’t winning the BIG elections is because Greens, Libertarians, and Constitution folks will not sell out like the Republicans and Democrats. Both of the old parties are so tied to corporate interest. Very few corporations or PACs donate to smaller parties because they know the big payoff can happen when they give to the D’s and R’s. It’s a vicious cycle that keeps growing. Government is all about rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies.

- The Clean Water act.
We all want clean water. And because there is a demand, people must supply it. The government can’t supply this, especially since they are the largest polluter, especially with their military. The government should be involved in protecting our property instead of overregulating, and creating economic problems for business. The more we regulate business, the less money we have to spend on healthcare, or education, etc. Since refineries are over-regulated oil costs more, which also hurts poor people. I would favor strong property rights to combat pollution, along with restitution. As far as air pollution, that’s a different story. I break with most libertarians on this issue.

-Consumer Protection laws of all sorts
Read John Stossel’s “Give Me A Break”. He was a consumer reporter, turned libertarian. This is a big topic, but there are definetly free market solutions to consumer protection including UL, Consumer Reports, private certification, private medical certification, electronics standards, private testing facilities, and so much more. I feel safer when there is more competition, not less.

- Maintaining a woman’s right over her own body and what she does with it.
I agree that a woman should have her right to do what she wants with her body. Again, government should simply protect people from force or fraud. That’s it. You don’t need government for this.

-The internet (or ARPANET, if you want to look that up)
The internet, as we know it with Ebay, Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc. All of the websites were created because of business. It ARPANET was around and there was no free market you would not see the internet as we know it. Even this website was built because of a free profitable market. There was no ecommerce, or advertising to help build the millions of sites out there.

- The Brady Bill
First off, this law violated the Bill of Rights, and does not protect me. You can create thousands of gun laws, but criminals will still want to get guns because of many black markets that were created by the government.

-Welfare reform
It’s so sad that government only gives 30% to people in need versus private charity which gives typically 85% directly to people. Would you rather give a blank check to George Bush, or the Salvation Army? I choose the Salvation Army. Personally I give to Sharing & Caring Hands.

- Medicare/Medicaid
Because the government spends more than 50% of the dollars in healthcare the cost has dramatically gone up because corporations can charge more if they are guaranteed this government money. Also the salaries of CEOs have skyrocketed to more and more government regulation, which squeezes out small business competition.

- The Motor/Voter act
This one sounds good, because you would think it makes things easier. The Act made it harder to verify the identity of voters seeking to register, and this programs cost people millions of dollars because of extra paperwork and the verification process. It can actually create more problems, like dead people on the roles, or more roll numbers than the voting age population. This needs to be reformed.

- Peace in N. Ireland (Clinton)
If you give government the power to do good, you give the government the power to bad, like what we are doing in the middle east. I can’t believe I am saying this to a Democrat, but we are not the World Police. the government should be protecting our own citizens and not running around the world creating enemies.

- Supporting stem cell research
I’m all for it, as long as the government isn’t involved. And no religious nuts should ban it either. Let people decide.

- Equal Rights Amendment push
We still have an inequality in wealth between the races. To say that because some white guys wrote some laws on paper, doesn’t mean that we still do not have race issues. I believe we should treat everyone equally, whether they are gay, immigrant, woman, brown, or even purple. I love the diversity we have in our country, but to give certain races special treatment doesn’t sound like equality. Racists get around these laws anyway. I believe all races and immigrants should be given the opportunity to work in the free market. Racists who refuse good workers will eventually lose in the end, as they should.

FINALLY, because you’ve wanted to create government power, that power has got into the hands of George W. Bush. Because he has so much money and power he is able to go to war, spy on our citizens, create a Patriot Act, create a bloated “No Child Left Behind” act, spend money on his favorite corporate givers, and many others. He now rewards his friends and punishes his enemy with government power. If you play the game of big government, you get burned.

“The BIG reason why third parties aren’t winning the BIG elections is because Greens, Libertarians, and Constitution folks will not sell out like the Republicans and Democrats.”

You can all get together and pin medals on each other. And take your principles and $1 down to the corner and buy yourself a cup of coffee.

- The Clean Water act– If the free market will protect the environment on it’s own, I invite you to bring that up with Exxon Mobil at their next community outreach meeting.
-Consumer Protection– Again, please talk to Merck and Co. for me, big gov. boot has been on their neck over that Vioxx of theirs.
- Maintaining a woman’s right over her own body– All Democrats want to do is protect her right, nothing more.
-The internet (or ARPANET, if you want to look that up)– Government put down the initial capital for ARPANET, so they at least deserve a tip of the hat. I never said they created the business on it. Nor did they create the business that functions because of the Interstate system, airports or locks and dams they built. Nor did they help your business, whatever it may be, but you get there every day thanks to them.
- The Brady Bill– Guns Don’t Kill People… all that stuff.
-Welfare reform– I don’t mind paying $1 to keep food on an old lady’s table, no matter who does it.
- Medicare/Medicaid– See: consumer protection.
- The Motor/Voter act– It needs reform, like you said, but not abolition.
- Peace in N. Ireland (Clinton)– The best way to protect our own citizens is smart diplomacy.
- Supporting stem cell research– Again, Democrats just want to give business to freedom to pursue it (and maybe kick a few million in capital their way.) Republicans are the ones who want to stop it cold.
- Equal Rights Amendment push– That’s been discussed already on this thread, I don’t see a free market solution to racism that sounds realistic.

MLH,

I repeat. The job is government is to protect our property. If Exxon dumped anything on my land, I should be able to sue them for every dime. Over-regulation hurts our wages, hurts gas prices, hurts working people. There should be different, private environmental standards, rather than regulations (which are written by the lobbyists and corporations).

Yes, government and AL GORE may deserve the “tip of the hat” for the ARPANET. But that’s after of millions of dollars that were poured into it. The bottom line is that people created it. People can create things like this without government including all of the cable for your cable modem, the energy for your home, and many more things a free market can supply.

When you give $1 to the government to feed the hungry or house the homeless, you’d be lucky if 10 cents gets to the people who really need it. I was a progressive who thought that government should create a safety net. After years of digging into the issue I discovered it was government security net for the corporations. The best way to give money to poor people is not by government force, but by sending it to the charity you think is best. That way you prioritize the best cause whether it’s a reading program for children, after school programs, housing for families, or eyeglasses for African children. Or if we have more money less people would need to go on welfare in the first place. Millions of Americans create the saftey net. Government only makes it more difficult for poor people. I could write volumes on how government actually drives people into poverty.

You said we need “smart diplomacy”. It doesn’t matter if Albert Einstein is our president, he can’t solve all of the world’s problems. Dictators can’t be experts on everything. Because Clinton and Bush spent money on war, we have less money for healthcare, education, child care, you name it. It’s ALL ABOUT PRIORITIZATION. Government can’t prioritize things, ever.

Government can’t solve race either. Government is more likely to get involved in racist genocide if you look at history. I just don’t trust them.

Issac,
I just disagree on that principle. It’s true that government’s primary job is to protect our property, but that isn’t it. Taxes and the government itself are a form of investment. No entrepreneur makes it on his own in America. The American infrastructure makes entrepreneurship possible, and others have put it in place. If you’ve made a bundle, you owe a bundle.
The SEC keeps the market honest. Most of the judicial system (which you would be suing Exxon through) is used for corporate law. Drugs developed with NIH funding are patented for private use and profit. Chemical companies hire scientists trained under federal grants. Airlines hire pilots trained by the military. The beef industry grazes its cattle cheaply on public lands. The more wealth you accumulate using what the dues payers have provided, the greater the debt you owe to those who have made your wealth possible. That is the logic of progressive taxation.

And y’all are calling us libertarians idealist? The SEC doesn’t keep the market honest. It provides ways for corporations to weasel around their shareholders. The beef industry destroys the environment of those public lands because they rent them. NIH funding is less efficient than private funding for developing drugs. And so on.

I really have no sympathy for you liberals who voted Democrat and then complain about what the Bush Administration does.
You want out of Iraq, and you voted Democrat. Kerry wanted more troops in Iraq. The only party that would have immediately withdrawn was the Libertarian Party.
You want the Patriot Act to go away, and you voted Democrat. Almost all Democrats voted for the Patriot Act in both its first and second incarnations. The only party that would have immediately eliminated the Patriot Act is the Libertarian Party.
You want corporate honesty, and you voted Democrat. The only way a corporation can screw over the people without repurcussion is in collusion with government. The only party that would make the impossible – by streamlining government so that there was little to collude with – is the Libertarian Party.
You want to stop hurting the middle class to the benefit of the rich. And you voted Democrat. The only party that would lower taxation for everybody – a pay raise for us all – is the Libertarian Party.
You want medical marijuana. And you voted Democrat. The only party that would stop the ridiculous, money-wasting War on Drugs is the Libertarian Party.
You want scientists to be able to research what they want. And you voted Democrat. The only party that would end oversight of scientists is the Libertarian Party.
You want free speech. And you voted Democrat. The Democrats want to impose rating systems on multitudinous forms of media to restrict the people’s access. The only party that would give unrestricted free speech to all (assuming no libel, slander, or otherwise intentionally damaging speech) is the Libertarian Party.

And you conservatives who voted Republican, you’re no better.
You want an end to ridiculous drug laws. And you voted Republican. The only party that would let you protect yourself without restrictions (no we don’t advocate nukes for us all) is the Libertarian Party.
You want to limit the size of government. And you voted Republican. The government has grown 33% under Bush. It grew under Reagan. The only party that has always reduced government when elected is the Libertarian Party.
You want to reduce taxes. And you voted Republican. The only party that actively works against taxes every time it is elected is the Libertarian Party.

Y’all are all either ignorant or stupid. Either way, you’re voting to destroy America. This November, how about y’all vote for real, positive change. Vote to save America. Vote Libertarian.

(Yes, I’m Texan, I use y’all. It’s a great word.)

libertarianyouth.blogspot.com

Apropos of MLH’s comment:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The “Bear Patrol” is working like a charm!
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Liberitarianism is great if people are essentially good and fair.
When people don’t play by the rules than’s when everything goes to hell.

Large Corporations will conspire to keep prices artificially high, nepotism will be the main factor in hiring, and the rights of the the minorities will be under represented.

Oh wait that’s what we have now! My Bad. I guess we should repeal all government aid to all people and stop taxes. Give that a try for a few years and see where were at.

I see a lot more private armed guards.

The only party that has always reduced government when elected is the Libertarian Party.

The gov. payroll shrank by 100K employees under Clinton.

Anyways, I think it’s funny to listen to Libertarians plead for votes and bomb consistently year after year and then turn around tell people that individual choice is the most important value in the world. You should be happy about this, the free market has spoken and they say “no” to libertarians every year. That’s a landslide of individual choice.

My only question is whether Nigel lives in Minnesota or not. Are you debating the value of libertarianism in Minnesota from Texas?

I would be interested in seeing a demographical break down of registered Libretarian Party members.

I’m in MN. There are a lot of Texas Libertarians running for office.

As far as corporations, Libertarians are against them. Let me be clear. It’s the corporate laws that create these artificial monopolies and give unfair advantages. Government scratches business, and business scratches government. It’s a cycle that continues each other, and not the people.

Most people haven’t heard of the Libertarian Party or know what they really stand for. I hear it all of the time. Again, if the two parties didn’t leave out the Greens, Libertarians, Constitution Party, and others we would probably get even more elected. Libertarians, at this time, are only effective at the local level. Like I said there are over 600 in office, which is far more than all other third parties. But I think the next step will be state offices.

Again, these parties aren’t corrupted by the corporate donors. They typically get contributions from the middle class working person, instead of the $2,000 checks or $10,000 per plate dinners.

Hey, I would like you “progressives”, “liberals”, “socialists”, and “conservatives” to check out a highly recommended libertarian radio show called Free Talk Live. Call in tonight from 6-9pm on http://www.freetalklive.com. I dare you to defend your ideals, or at least listen to the program. You can call in and talk about ANYTHING, and that’s why they call it FREE TALK LIVE. It’s the #1 political podcast (According to PodcastAlley.com) so check it out.

http://www.freetalklive.com

BTW, Nigel,
Your blog says that you’re not even old enough to vote or pay taxes. Not that that invalidates anything you have to say, but it’s a little early to be preaching about taxes and the working man, ain’t it?

This is a fun Table based on the 2000 Census and shows why Libertarians win so few elections!

There are nearly 3 times as many vegans as Libertarians! and 5 times as many people speak Tagalong!

The problem with libertarianism is that it assumes people will act in their best interests and will act fairly to others in pursuit of their best interests. I was about six years old when I realized people don’t act in either fashion.

The first rule of power is preservation of power. That’s why Libertarians don’t have any.

I would say that it totally invalidates anything you have to say about taxes and the working man.

This is a fun Table based on the 2000 Census and shows why Libertarians win so few elections!

There are nearly 3 times as many vegans as Libertarians! and 5 times as many people speak Tagalong!

- Do you see Greens or Constitution folks on there? Third parties are shut out from the elections, as I said. Name 3 laws that hurt third parties. If you can’t name them, then you don’t understand.

Also polls have shown that between 9 – 20% of people call themselves Libertarian.

Pew Research shows 9% are LIBERTARIAN:
http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=17

Gallup said 20% are LIBERTARIAN:

Gallup Poll’s annual survey on government found that 27% of Americans are conservative; 24% are liberal, up sharply because the poll was taken after Katrina, which boosted support for the proposition that “government should do more to solve our country’s problems.” Gallup also found — this year as in others — that 20% are neither liberal nor conservative but libertarian, opposing the use of government either to “promote traditional values” or to “do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses.” Another 20% are “populist” (supporting government action in both areas), with 10% undefined. Libertarian support, spread across demographic groups, is strongest among well-educated voters.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5431

If this is the case there are easily 20 million Libertarians

The problem with Libertarianism is, I think, as Isaac has been putting it: the belief that the only reason government exists is to help you control your property.

I found that a very attractive line of reasoning in high school–I’d always hang out with the Libertarian folks at the state fair and we’d hate on the assault weapons ban together. Then I had a parent whose mental illness began manifesting. In the struggle of dealing with all that I began to realize that property wasn’t the ultimate measure of life, or of a society.

To this day I thank God (who I’ve also come to know a whole lot better since high school) that social services like section 8 housing, Minnesotacare, and social security exist. My parent has an independence and is receiving treatment that on my own I would never have been able to provide.

De facto social darwinism is not something I think this country is eager to go back to. And free market fundamentalism is no way to structure a society–ask the farmers who are stuck farming fencerow to fencerow and struggle to reduce their crop supplies (which would earn them higher prices) ever since government interventions were removed* from farm legislation. The removal of government market interventions has been hell for American agriculture.

Oh, and I can drink clean water without first having to sue for the privilege. Though if you could tell me who to sue in order to reduce the number of pollution watch days in Minneapolis I’d be more than happy to call them. I just don’t have the resources to track them down or hire a lawyer to maintain a certain living standard. Fortunately, the government is doing that for us.

Here’s a question… Would there be no compassion if there was no government?

Would there be no greed if there was no government?

Greed would be constrained by the market if there was not government.

I never said property is the “ultimate measure of life”. It’s up to individuals to decide what is best. Maybe it’s their mother. Maybe it’s their children. Maybe it’s praying and having a closer relationship with God. Maybe it’s their business. Or maybe even a set of huge muscles. But all of those things require property. I consider your body, mind, life as property too.

Bottom line… If the wrong people get into office THEY will prioritize things. If you give them power to create “section 8 housing, Minnesotacare, and social security” then don’t complain when it’s expensive to get health care, or an education, energy, or whatever. Government takes half of your money for whatever it wants. You can’t possibly track how all your money is spent by the thousands of alphabet soup agencies. And when other people spend other peoples’ money, they are more careless.

Like I said earlier, real compassion comes when people direct their money to where they think is best, rather than using the government police to force everyone to abide. If you don’t pay your property taxes, you know they will take your ass to jail.

Would there be no greed if there was no government?

There will always be greed if there is government or not. Always.

What is greed? If I decided I wanted to be a greedy capitalist I could create a product, hire workers or machines to duplicate it and become rich. This product could be a great medical device, or an educational book, or a cheaper way to process food. My greed turns into other people’s gain. And if I’m the CEO I can’t just give myself a raise. Boards of directors would need to approve as well as shareholders.

Our current system right now is NOT a free capitalist market. We are living in a corporate facist market, which inflates CEOs paychecks because they have corporate law to protect them. It’s government that ALLOWS CEOs to make the amount of money they have because of all the regulations that do not allow small businesses to compete against these Walmart type companies.

Bill Gates may be rich, but he didn’t do it by sticking a gun to your head to force you to use his products. Government does force all of us (by the point of a gun) to pay taxes for their programs. 51% force the other 49% to deal with their program. That’s minority controlling the minority, mob rule, which doesn’t work. Government can be as greedy as it wants because there is little or no accountability when 95% of incumbents get re-elected.

Government can be as greedy as it wants because there is little or no accountability when 95% of incumbents get re-elected.

So how is it that people can be trusted with their own money under the principles of the free market but those same people can’t be trusted with their votes in a democratic government.

Sorry, that was a question, probably should have used a question mark.

The problem with libertarianism is that it assumes people will act in their best interests and will act fairly to others in pursuit of their best interests.

People do act in their best interest. If they are not acting fairly in a business or personal setting people will not want to associate with them.

Give me an example of something you think is “unfair”.

So how is it that people can be trusted with their own money under the principles of the free market but those same people can’t be trusted with their votes in a democratic government.

There is more accountability in a market where we make thousands of decisions on the safe car we want, to the food we eat, to the clothes we buy, to the lightbulbs we purchase, to the daycare we send our children. Because we make thousands of decisions we have far more control over our lives, than in government. Only 50% of us vote every 2-4 years. Then only half of those people had their “representative” elected. Then politicians can change thier minds or LIE as they are known for. Most people don’t follow their government, but would rather vote for their favorite singer on American Idol. In fact there are more vote cast on that show over the entire season than in a presidential election. Democracy and government doesn’t work. People making their own desicions about which charities are best, which car is safest, which daycare is affordable, etc. All of us make the decisions, rather than several hundred white guys in suits, worried about the next election.

Seriously, if you haven’t questioned government you should. Question everything… even what I’m saying. It’s healthy to question. I was brought up in a government school. I get government news every day. There are thousands of government advertising. When I challenged myself I changed my thinking from socialism to freedom. Right now Bush and his buddies keep going down the socialist/facist path.

You’re a man with a lot to say, Isaac.

May I suggest, however, that Bush isleading us neither toward fascinsm or socialism, but instead toward a uniquely American form of machine politics. You’re political viewpoints will betaken a lot more seriously if you offer actual analysis, rather than shouting out the names of bugaboos that are supposed to scare us. At this moment, I’m far more frightened of what rich people will do given their druthers than about what supposed fascists or socialists will do, as both groups are so marginalized in this country as to barely be noticeable.

God damn, this keyboard is frustrating. Must … check .. every comment for typos.

There is more accountability in a market where we make thousands of decisions…

That just isn’t true. Honestly, do you think that share cropping, indentured servitude, “company stores”, robber barons, etc. were invented by some sort of overzealous government intervention? Government saved us from these things. For centuries, only the free market existed and people lived in a world no better than slavery. There is no free market solution to an 80-year old widow starving to death out in the cold, or children being sold into sweatshops or brothels, or single mothers resorting to prostitution as a last resort. Those things are a result of the free market, government is the balast.
I’m not arguing for socialism either, because there is a balance to be struck between government and the market. But I guess that’s the point: this black or white thinking is first of all wrong, and most importantly, it’s pointless.

Whoever made the comment about Clinton reducing the federal payroll missed the word “always”. And if I’m so clueless about what I’m talking about, why don’t you point out what’s wrong with what I say instead of automatically dismissing it based on my age? Also, I am a Texan in Texas, but I was debating the merits of Libertarianism in general, not just in MN, because that’s what the conversation has turned to. I ended up here from Google News.

And, I do pay taxes. Admittedly, my income taxes were $5 this year, but there you go.

Good, let the Republican cockroaches fight each other off. I really don’t care. In fact, those clowns at the state capitol did nothing in the last four years, except bringing chaos and irresponsible behaviour to the general public. I mean if those guys think that they’re going to get re-elected this year, dream on. Their ship has already sunk for self-stupidity and total arrogance.

And if anyone want’s to defend these bozos, grab a lifejacket and joined in.

In fact, those clowns at the state capitol did nothing in the last four years,

See, one of the differences between democrats and republicans is that republicans would say that that’s a good thing. It seems to me that you give these politicians and state government in general, waayyyy too much credit for what happens in your life. I mean, come on, bringing chaos and irresponsible behavior to the general public? You need to put politics in the proper perspective in your life … like maybe item 29 in your list of 30 factors that impact your life. IMHO. But I guess if you could do that, you wouldn’t be a democrat, you’d be a normal person.

There’s got to be more to Republicanism than making fun of Democrats.

I guess I do make fun of democrats alot around here and if I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings because of it, I’m sorry. It’s just that I refuse, intellectually, to give them any power over me and so when they begin to sound and act as if they have any control over me in any way, I tend to react with ridicule and dismissal … a defense mechanism to be sure. Once again, I apologize.

lol

Honestly, do you think that share cropping, indentured servitude, “company stores”, robber barons, etc. were invented by some sort of overzealous government intervention? Government saved us from these things.

Indentured servitude is what we have right now with our government as the master and the people as the servants. Except we can’t opt out. we can’t set the rules. Ask yourself a good question. Do you own yourself, or does the government own you? Then you will find out you the real “servant” is.

If you know your history about “sharecropping” this came after emancipation of slaves. You aren’t suggesting that we go back to slavery, do you? It was because of government approved slavery that blacks were not able to keep their own wealth, and once they were free they were starting at zero, just like many immigrants today. It was because of government that slaves existed. If there was no government intervention, slavery would have never existed in a free country.

Because our economy is so diverse, and because we do not live in a farm-based society, people have far more opportunities than before.

Let’s talk about robber barons. In order to get rich, you need to please others, trade with others, and provide a service. You can’t just become wealthy overnight by force. You can’t just print money (like the govenment does to create inflation). Many of these industries made America the super economic power that it is today. People voluntarily accepted jobs, or created their own jobs because we were known as the “land of opportunity”. Contrast that with government and they can raise your taxes without any consent, tell you what medicine you can or can’t use, or use eminent domain. Does that sound like their robbing you? Is it compassion to steal from others to pay for what they want? If you ask me, the modern day “robber barons” are from the government.

The “robber barons” were also the biggest philanthropists, especially in New York, where they built libraries, schools, museums. Oh wait, the free market couldn’t do that!! And it wasn’t just robber barons that created these centers. Ordinary people donated and created thousands of churches to provide all of these things too.

Let’s be honest here. Greed is ugly. In my opinion, nobody really needs a mansion. And people are no more happy if they make 100,000 or $10 billion. Money can’t buy you happiness.

Let’s get to the bottom line. Refusing government programs may be seen as not very loving, but pointing guns at our neighbors to force them to help those in need is even less so. This wasn’t clear to me at first, but after years of challenging my beliefs I started to understand the negatives of government force.

Check out “Healing Our World” by Mary Ruwart. This is a great introduction to libertarianism if you consider yourself a progressive or liberal.

http://www.ruwart.com

I consider myself both progressive and liberal, and that’s why I steer clear of libertarianism. It’s glib, uneducated belief that somehow the free market will solve all out problem, and somehow the government is at the root of all our problems, makes me certain that good-hearted libertarians are simply deluded. The history of the free market is not a pretty one, and slavery, indentured servitude, monopolies, and idiot millionaire president-kings are not simply an abberation in the flow of the free market, they are the inevitable result.

Instead of pointing us to liberatrian philosophical books, let me point to you instead books about the history of labor, or even books about history. Libertarians so often sound like those lunatic Stanists you run into, who argue that mass murder, mass starvation, gulags and imperialism were somehow not actually part of Stalin’s legacy, but instead a mistaken byproduct of what is otherwise a perfectly sound theory.

I believe the free market can’t solve all our problems. There are problems with any type of system we create. There will always be scam artists, snake-oil salesmen, etc. I know there are many bad things that can be found in the free market.

The question should be, what system is most fair, compassionate, and allows people to have access to the things we need for survival. If you give people opportunity, instead of barriers, poor people and the common person will succeed.

If you look at history, as you say you do, you will find the most prosperous countries are those that have economic freedom and personal freedoms. The average family that has more wealth, also has better health care, better wages, and more chances to succeed. The countries like China, the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and even socialist countries all have more poverty. In some countries the average person may only make $1 per day or $300 per year. Because we have abundance, wealth, and we can keep the money from our labor; the average person can make a better living and provide for their families much easier. History is very clear on this.

You also said that I’m “glib”. You are making assumptions. This is far from the truth since I know my history, read constantly, and study. I could also say that liberals are “know-it-alls”. The legislators that create these laws are mostly lawyers who think they know what’s best. They have no idea about farming, computers, nutrition, space exploration, transportation, disease control, war, poverty, pollution, textile industries, or whatever they want to solve. In a real free market, college educated experts focus on solutions to the problems in their communities, rather than a bunch of lawyers who think they know best about how to run our lives.

Legislators don’t even read all of the bills they sign, how do you know they are providing the best solutions with legislation?

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.” is the inscription on the base of the statue of liberty. This isn’t just some rhetoric. It’s how America treated others. America is the nation that can take care of our poorest, because we are free. Freedom makes us healthier, stronger, and gives us opportunity.

Also, I think when people respond to surveys that ask if they’re Republican or Democrat or Libertarian, they use “Libertarian” as a proxy for Moderate. That’s not the same thing whatsoever. In fact, if you explained to that survey taker what a Libertarian really is, they’d probably pull a Princess Bride and do a “blue, no GREEN!! AAAYYYYYEEEE!!!!!”

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are in such disarray right now it’s almost funny. It’s because of the activist party bases who control the caucuses and won’t let the rational people into the process.

STRIKE THAT: it’s really about rational people like you and me not participating in the early-stage processes and getting involved early enough to drown out the social issue crazies. Why? Because, like the old Groucho quote: “I wouldn’t join any club that would accept a person like me as a member.”

I consider myself both progressive and liberal, and that’s why I steer clear of libertarianism.

Hey, that’s understandable. One of the things I disagree with George Bush about is his belief that everyone has an instinctive desire to be free.

I see it every day that many people not only fear and resent freedom, they have even rationalized in their own mind that demanding to be taken care of, you know, living in a collectivist society where some people contribute more to the pot than others and that’s ok, is somehow the most noble societal model. No really, it’s true! I kid you not.

Well, youknow, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, and all that. It hardly seems to me likea just society would punish a mentally retarded person with a lower standard of living just because they couldn’t contribute the same amount to the pot.

George Bush doesn’t want us to be free. He hasn’t vetoed one spending bill, has raised our debt, and has passed laws that hurt our civil liberties. His administration has been wanting to control everything from free speech on the internet, to more farm regulations. When you hear George Bush talk about freedom and liberty it’s just another one of his many lies.

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need,

Karl Marx

Yes, in phrasing, but the idea predates him. It could have come from the mouth of a talking fish and still be a vision for a just society.

Much of the rest of Marx, however, well … meh.

“from each according to their ability, to each according to their need,”

Translation: it’s okay to rob at gun point from others to solve your problems.

At last we agree, Issac.

This is why, even though I’m a libertarian, I don’t belong to the LP. I refused to put on the skirt.

What’s funny about being a Libertarian is that I have been confused with being a liberal because I am against the Patriot Act, against spying, for civili liberties, for reproductive rights, against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, for immigration, for free speech, against marriage licenses, for drug legalization, etc. But what do all of these things have in common? FREEDOM from government.

On every issue, every time, I think it’s none of my business to tell you what to do. But both conservatives and liberals think they know what’s best.

Oops, sorry for a few spelling mistakes.

There are obviously a couple of fundamental questions in this debate that need to be wrassled with (yes, that’s Cowboy-talk).

First, can the free market — with its inherent necessity for greed — take care of people better than a centrally-controlled market? The closest comparison to date would be the US vs. China.

Second, can the free market actually control greed through its financial levers and pullies better than one in which goverment policies actually protect the expansion of the greed of a few?

We never really have a good debate about this latter question. In this latter case, the “free” market is in fact not free. Industries that actually wouldn’t be the heathiest in a truly free market continue to thrive because they’re protected by governmental forces. We currently live in a government/market hybrid. (And please don’t squawk “conspiracy” because I don’t believe that to be the case.)

OK, I’ll go on the limb by using a theory. In a truly free market, the oil industry would be dying a fast death, and alternative energy companies would be flourishing. The only reason oil continues to drown everything else out is because of its relationships with governments and truly corrupt international markets. They should be failing because of all its fundamental economic qualities are horribly unmarketable: a finite supply, geo-political risk, consumption vs. renewable, the list goes on.

I’m an environmentalist. And a free-market guy. I have two young children who I want to see living in a beautiful world. I’d like to see the market solve environmental problems because I think it can do a better — and FASTER — job of solving the major problems we have right now. Forget the government. For now, the government is oil. So we’d be looking in the wrong direction.

Translation: it’s okay to rob at gun point from others to solve your problems.

Whoops. And you slip into nonsense again.

Look, you have to understand that it’s in the government’s best interest (more accurately, the elected officials that run the government) to have a thriving economy. All the western economies run on oil. You don’t change that phenomenon overnight due to infratstructure alone. Why do you think american administrations since Roosevelt have been buddy-buddy with these shieks and arab kings when if they had their druthers these people would all be overthrown tomnorrow? Because you can’t afford to piss off the people who control the spigot on your ozygen mask. And that’s the ugly truth. The fact that we have entreprenuers in the biodiesal and hydrogen fuel bidness now (including one of my relatives) at least tells you that change is coming. Bush’s $ billion boost to spur research in flex fuel use isn’t much, but it can’t hurt.

I agree with aeklund. And yes, currently live in a government/market hybrid.

Translation: it’s okay to rob at gun point from others to solve your problems.
msparber said: Whoops. And you slip into nonsense again.

It isn’t nonsense. If you don’t pay your property taxes men with guns will come and take you to prison. If you don’t pay your income taxes the IRS and police can throw you in prison. Government robs people at gunpoint to operate itself.

Government is force. Every government program, law, or regulation is a demand that someone do what he doesn’t want to do, refrain from doing what he does want to do, or pay for something he doesn’t want to pay for. And those demands are backed up by police with guns.

You expect that force to be used only against the guilty. But we can see how the Drug War, the foreign wars, asset forfeiture, the Patriot Act, and other government activities have used force just as often against the innocent — people who have not intruded on anyone else’s person or property.

In fact, government force is used more often against the innocent than the guilty, because the guilty make it their business to understand the laws that apply to them and stay clear of them. Meanwhile, the innocent, thinking they’ve nothing to fear, suddenly find that they’ve innocently violated laws they never heard of. And don’t tell me that you’ve read all of the federal, state, and local laws, because you haven’t.

Can you argue against this? Why do you think government force is neccessary to force your agenda?

Well, it’s really more like you’ve walked into a store, grabbed a sideof beef, and marched out without paying. In this case, the side of beef is the police force, education, fire departments, and a million other little day-to-day things we pay for with our taxes, and unless you aren’t actually using them, and will actually turn away the fire department when they come to keep your house from burning down, then refusing to pay taxes is theft.

I’d like my taxes spent better, yes, but I hardly think the government is robbing me in demanding them.So your metaphor is imprecise in this regard.

First off, I am a Libertarian and not an anarchist. Since I am a Libertarian I believe in a police force to protect against those who have commited robbery, rape, murder, because in those cases force was created by the perpetrator. In my opinion, taxes are only just when they are used to protect from real force or fraud. And I believe we can fund taxes through many innovative, voluntary ways.

Government should also have a court system to prosecute those who commit force. The Constitution also allows for a Navy and Army, and to “coin money” and several other things. Like I said, I’m a Libertarian and not an anarchist. I believe smaller government is a better thing.

Fire departments were created at the local level voluntarily. Even famous Libertarian Comedian Denis Leary created his own fire department charity for better equipment and tools because his cousin died. Millions of Americans have funded these programs, because of our wealth and compassion, just like churches, libraries, shelters, etc. Again, you don’t believe people are compassionate without government. Compassion is a human trait and it will be here forever.

Your beef analogy doesn’t work, but I will play with it. Every person should create their own money to purchase whatever “beef” they want. But currently we don’t decide how our money gets spent. Instead, we buy corporate “beef”, and Halliburton “beef”, Iraqi “beef” and all sorts of beef that is rotton because it’s spent by 535 “representatives”.

Many Libertarians, like myself, don’t think the government should be involved at the federal level in education and believe local government would do a better job, and even private business, churches, charities, or tutors could do a better job. Since the government got involved federally in education, test scores have come down dramatically, and school has become more expensive, bureaucratic, and not doing the job of educating our children. Public schools have failed us, and only in richer areas can a student get a decent education.

Where’s the “beef”? It’s being spent by King George W. in Washington and there’s so much spending that you can’t follow the money. When you own things you know what your budget is and have far more choices.

First off, I am a Libertarian and not an anarchist. Since I am a Libertarian I believe in a police force to protect against those who have committed robbery, rape, murder, because in those cases the perpetrator created force. In my opinion, taxes are only just when they are used to protect from real force or fraud. And I believe we can fund taxes through many innovative, voluntary ways.

Government should also have a court system to prosecute those who commit force. The Constitution also allows for a Navy and Army, and to “coin money” and several other things. Like I said, I’m a Libertarian and not an anarchist. I believe smaller government is a better thing.

Fire departments were created at the local level voluntarily. Even famous Libertarian Comedian Denis Leary created his own fire department charity for better equipment and tools because his cousin died. Millions of Americans have funded these programs, because of our wealth and compassion, just like churches, libraries, shelters, etc. Again, you don’t believe people are compassionate without government. Compassion is a human trait and it will be here forever.

Your beef analogy doesn’t work, but I will play with it. Every person should create their own money to purchase whatever “beef” they want. But currently we don’t decide how our money gets spent. Instead, we buy corporate “beef”, and Halliburton “beef”, Iraqi “beef” and all sorts of beef that is rotten because 535 representatives spend it.

Many Libertarians, like myself, don’t think the government should be involved at the federal level in education and believe local government would do a better job, and even private business, churches, charities, or tutors could do a better job. Since the government got involved federally in education, test scores have come down dramatically, and school has become more expensive, bureaucratic, and not doing the job of educating our children. Public schools have failed us, and only in richer areas can a student get a decent education.

Where’s the “beef”? King George W. in Washington is spending it. There’s so much spending that you can’t follow the money. When you own things you know what your budget is and have far more choices.

Thanks, Max. And just to clarify that while Issac agreed with me on the government/market hybrid at work, I would like to be sure that he didn’t jump the shark on my behalf: I do not agree with breaking the law and not paying your taxes. I’m a pretty straight ahead guy. You change government not by rebelling against it but by getting into it. That goes for the boardroom as well. I’d rather be sitting at the boardroom table making change than protesting outside.

I’m not likely to ever be allowed into the board room, so I will have to settle for protesting outside.

I do not agree with breaking the law and not paying your taxes. I’m a pretty straight ahead guy.

I again agree. I pay my taxes every year. I believe in playing by the rules set forth and changing our government. I never said anything about not paying taxes.

Wha? So you just want to complain about them?

By the way, with the first fire departments, you had to buy fire insurance. It wasn’t simply an act of compassion. If you were too poor to pay for your fire insurance and you had a fire, too bad.

In this regard, I trust the compassion of our goverment more than the compassion of the profit motive, and I don’t especially trust the government’s compassion.

I don’t just complain about taxes and government, but I am active in campaigns, donate my time and money when I can, and write letters to my legislators.

Fire insurance was affordable for everyone because we lived in a free country where everyone could keep most or all of their income, and afford doctors visits, automobiles, affordable housing, etc. In countries where there is vast poverty, due to government controls, they may not have fire stations, or even the amount of water to fight off a fire. It is because of freedom that we had fire departments built in America. This concept was completely foreign to the rest of the world, except for parts of Europe.

Again, if people want insurance, then people will voluntarily acquire it. What if people are too poor? Then they should build a slightly smaller home so they can afford the insurance associated with it. Or they can join a community where they can pay taxes, or join an association where they can choose to have this service. Again, choice is better than force in every situation.

Tell me, what’s so wrong with trying to make a profit? Or what’s wrong keeping money that you earn?

“Libertarians Do It By Themselves.”™

Libertarians Do It By Themselves

This isn’t correct either. Libertarians work all people, citizens, immigrants, Americans, foreign countries, or anyone they choose to work with.

Here are some good definitions of Libertarians (from Libertarianism.com)

“Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.”
– Sharon Harris, President, Advocates for Self-Government

* * *

“Libertarianism promotes a society where no one is the first to harm (strike, defraud, steal from) another. If someone fails to obey this one-and-only law, then he or she must make things right again with the one who is harmed. The only legitimate use of force is self-defense. Basically, libertarianism is a restatement of how we learned to get along with each other as youngsters. We honor our neighbors’ choices, and they honor ours. We don’t start fights and only fight back when attacked. We try to make right any wrongs that we do. Simple, isn’t it?”
– Dr. Mary Ruwart, Author, Healing Our World

* * *

“Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and don’t hit your sister.”
– Dr. Kenneth Bisson, Advocates Board of Directors

* * *

“Libertarianism is self-government. It combines the best of both worlds: The left leg of self-government is tolerance of others; the right leg is responsible economic behavior. The combination of both legs leads to social harmony and material abundance.”
– Marshall Fritz, Founder of the Advocates for Self-Government; President, Alliance for the Separation of School and State

* * *

“Free minds and free markets.”
– slogan of Reason magazine, a prominent libertarian publication

* * *

:”As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

“We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

“Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.”
– from the Preamble to the Libertarian Party Platform

* * *

“Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to his life in any way he chooses so long as he or she respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the Libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves uses force-actions like murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping and fraud.”
– Charles Murray, author, What it Means to Be a Libertarian

* * *

“In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence — legal or illegal — to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today.”
– Dean Russell, Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), 1955

* * *

“Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government’s only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. Libertarians value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity.”
– Carole Ann Rand, Board of Directors, Advocates for Self-Government

* * *

“Libertarianism is what you probably already believe& Libertarian values are American values. Libertarianism is America’s heritage of liberty, patriotism and honest work to build a future for your family. It’s the idea that being free and independent is a great way to live. That each of us is a unique individual, with great potential. That you own yourself, and that you have the right to decide what’s best for you. Americans of all races and creeds built a great and prosperous country with these libertarian ideals. Let’s use them to build America’s future.”
– David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party presidential candidate and author of Libertarianism in One Lesson

* * *

“A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are *not* libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.”
– author L. Neil Smith

Fire insurance was affordable for everyone because we lived in a free country where everyone could keep most or all of their income, and afford doctors visits, automobiles, affordable housing, etc.

What? You’re just making up stuff now. When was this fantastical time when we lived without poverty and everybody could afford everything they needed?

And you realize quoting libertarian writing to a non-libertarian is like quoting the Gospels to a Jew?

No, no, no. I meant:

“Libertarians Do It by Themselves.”&trade

“Libertarians Do It by Themselves.”"

because coalition is a dirty word.

Hey Max…i getcha… but too often I find that those protesting outside (which I am often a participant) assume that those on the inside are in some ways evil or threatening, when in fact some of the most effective and productive change can happen from within. If we are to assume that those on the “in” are forever corrupt, then that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy of nothingness and stagnation. And that, my friend, is truly depressing.

Disclosure: I do not profess an in-depth knowledge of Libertarianism; however, if the platform is truly committed to a “do no harm to others” treatise, then I’m curious. Most followers of most movements are hardly ever true to its founding platforms. Let’s add Christianity to that group, as an example, shall we? Jesus has got to be one of the most mis-followed originating religious figures of all time.

Reading Issac’s snippets it would seem to me that Libertarians would be as equally concerned about community as they would the individual. Judging from this discussion — just like modern Christianity — the founding principles of Libertarians have been lost in time…or at least lost in how it’s positioned through popular media on the political spectrum. Actually, if you’re looking for massive individualism with no platform concern to the greater community, then look no further than the modern Republican party. I mean, truly.

Taylor, that’s pretty stupid. When you’ve lost the debate, just look like a jackass.

I agree, aeklund.

Reading Issac’s snippets it would seem to me that Libertarians would be as equally concerned about community as they would the individual.

Well, let’s get something straight. There are people who believe in libertarian principles of individual liberty and live-and-let-livism, and there are purists who belong to the Libertarian Party. Just like there are people who believe in Christianity and then there are the clergy.

The reason the LP doesn’t win major elective office is the same reason that Judaism would never win a political office in Minnesota if it functioned as a political party instead of a religion … there aren’t enough die-hard purists to win a majority of votes.

And some LPers see membership in the party as some sort of religion with loyalty oaths and litmus tests. Most of us are small L libertarians who believe in free markets, limited government, and individual liberty.

I’ve known liberals who believe that libertarians should be voting democrat because we don’t oppose gay rights or abortion rights. But in a nutshell, while we generall give more to charity and volunteer to help those in need as much as anyone, we differ from the left in that we do because we want to … not because someone has told us to.

What separates us from self-described liberals is that we abhor mandated collectivism, while collectivism is the heart and soul of liberalism.

Actually, individual liberty is the heart and soul of liberalism. It’s the source of it’s name. Or, to quote wikipedia:

Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed.

No offense Max, but LOL.

liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals

Is the concept of political correctness, you know, being punished for saying the wrong things or using the incorrect words to describe something, a liberal concept or a conservative concept?

Is the concept of hate crime, you know where you are prosecuted for what you were thinking while committing a crime, a liberal concept or a conservative one? Freedom of thought, aye.

limitations on power, especially of government

Just out of curiosity, were you in favor of the smoking ban or against it? Are you in favor of government regulation or against it?

Whoever wrote that wikipedia entry must have done it on April 1st.

Max, I think we all aspire to what Wikipedia says about Liberalism. Sign me up! (I say that with all due respect…I really do aspire to that.) The truth of the matter is that neither dominant party adheres to those principles. I mean, we really need to get beyond the idea that the Democrats aspire to what you say. It’s just not true. And the activist Republicans are equally interested in pursuing a conservative “Christian” agenda of anti-abortion, Bible centric point of view. Both are equally abhorrent.

Well said.

msparber, you are right that liberalism once meant liberty. In fact, some libertarians still hold onto the title liberal because they believe it means liberty. Some say the term “classically liberal” means libertarian.

If liberal really meant for liberty, then sign me up too! Call me a liberal.

I went to dictionary.com and looked up a liberal and had no problem with all of the definitions. The only mention I didn’t like is when it said politically “progressive”, which means “favoring or promoting reform (often by government action).”

In my opinion the adjective liberal has changed to someone who supports bigger government, especially with social programs, versus the classic liberal definition.

In my opinion, the terms liberal and conservative apply to how one interprets the Constitution. Liberals see things that aren’t there (they have a liberal interpretation) …. conservatives have coined the term strict constructionist to identify someone who interpets the constitution as the founders intended.

Some say the term “classically liberal” means libertarian.

Actually, the term is classical liberal, which stems from the day when critics of King George, advocates of liberty, were liberal with their criticism of the king. Taxation without representation, etc. Classical liberals were the people who initiated the revolution.

Is the concept of political correctness, you know, being punished for saying the wrong things or using the incorrect words to describe something, a liberal concept or a conservative concept?

Conservative. It’s a classic example of Republicans playing victim when they’re called on their bullshit. On the radical leftist side, the term was only ever used as a joke, at first used to mock lefties who hewed too closely to the party line, or were obsessed with the language of the left at the expense of its content. The worst that can be said about liberals is that they are sometimes oversensitive in speech, preferring invented, cautiously worded phrases to describe minorites so as to not hurt anyone’s feeling — not much of a crime, really. But the phrase became a very effective bully tool for the right, even though the history of censorship in this country leans heavily toward the right wing.

Is the concept of hate crime, you know where you are prosecuted for what you were thinking while committing a crime, a liberal concept or a conservative one? Freedom of thought, aye.

Obviously, law takes into account motivation as a distinguishing factor in the severity of crime. Premeditated crime, for example, is judged more harshly than crimes of passion. While I don’t have any specific feelings one way or the other about hate crime legislation, there is precident, and it has always seemed sort of astounding to me that conservatives, who always like to play so tough when it comes to crime, suddenly let up a holler when added punishment comes from added criminal motivation.

Just out of curiosity, were you in favor of the smoking ban or against it? Are you in favor of government regulation or against it?

I am in favor of the smoking ban, just as I am in favor of the government regulating the quality of our meat, regulating the foods and drugs we are prescribed, and regulating the poisons we pump into the air and into our rivers. Additionally, as this was enacted by local government, its an example of the way states are supposed to self-govern; in fact, the decision has mostly been made county by county, which seems like a great example of small government in action. That being said, the federal government did away with slavery (specifically, the Republican party, opposing the institution of slavery on the federal level). Some problems simply cannot be solved on a state by state or county by county level. If you want an example of that, drive through New Orleans and tell me how a poor, destroyed city with a displaced population is going to repair itself. And find me the charity that will pony up the $100 billion it’s going to require to repair the town.

This is exactly the sort of thing we have a federal government for, and it says a lot about this administration that it is incapable of addressing or resolving the problem.

Classical liberalism predates libertarianism, but is certainly different from contemporary liberalism, just as classical Republicanism is decidedly different than contemporary Republicanism. I’m a liberal because I believe in personal liberty. I am also a progressive, because I believe in the idea of a social safety net, that liberty is reduced by poverty. I am a socialist, because I believe that, in classical terms, without the workers owning the means of production, there will always be essentially two classes in the county — the poor, who do most of the work, and the rich, who reap most of the rewards. And, on a small group level, I am an anarchist, because I find it to be the fairest, most democratic, and most effective system for organizing people.

I am not a libertarian, because I think it believes in an ahistoric world — that somehow, if everybody were free to do whatever they wanted, as long as they didn’t hurt anybody else, all of a sudden we would be on a level playing field. Instead, I see hundreds of years of power and money being concentrated into the hands of a small group of people. I see racism flourishing, and I see that black people, for a mutitude of historic reasons, floundering. Libertarians can’t even agree on whether we should open our borders to foreign workers or not; are we really to believe that they will offer any additional solution to the additional multitude of society’s ills, except the say that somehow the free market and limited government will somehow save the day?

So there. I’m going to go lie down for a while.

By the way, I know how tedious these political conversations are; sometimes I enjoy them, and sometimes the’re just a drag. So, to be clear: I’m not interested in swaying anybody to my viewpoint, and, if you want to be libertarian, by all means, even if I think it’s foolish.

Ultimately, I think our country benefits from a plurality of viewpoints, as long as they are well-considered and carefully articulated. Too much of politics today seem like a spectator match, where you root for your team because they were your farther’s team, and substance-be-damned. So I’m glad the others on this thread have at least considered their viewpoints, even if I believe them to be totally starkers.

I am not a libertarian, because I think it believes in an ahistoric world — that somehow, if everybody were free to do whatever they wanted, as long as they didn’t hurt anybody else, all of a sudden we would be on a level playing field. Instead, I see hundreds of years of power and money being concentrated into the hands of a small group of people. I see racism flourishing, and I see that black people, for a mutitude of historic reasons, floundering. Libertarians can’t even agree on whether we should open our borders to foreign workers or not; are we really to believe that they will offer any additional solution to the additional multitude of society’s ills, except the say that somehow the free market and limited government will somehow save the day?

So there. I’m going to go lie down for a while.

msparber,

It was because of government that racist laws stayed on the books for so long. Don’t forget it. Besides, giving preferential treatment to any race is racist, so government shouldn’t be involved in giving preferences. In a free market we can decide not to do business with a racist, or be friends with a racist. With government you are forced to believe what they want. You don’t control government. Currently we DO have racism. Some even suggest they come from our drug laws, police profiling, and other racist laws. Government committ genocide. I do not believe there is any worse crime than this. Notice the racism can be abused by the government, but at least you can do something about it in a free community, and not associate with racists. If I found out someone was racist I would pick up and leave because their mindset is absolutely warped. I have choice.

As far as immigration I am all for it, as long as they don’t use government benefits. If they are here to be responsible then they should be allowed to join us. Right now the immigration laws are actually very tough. We should make it easier to become a citizen, instead of spending billions on deportation, walls, barbed wire, or whatever. It’s the racist bigots that are against this, otherwise they would suggest to make the immigration process easier, but you do not hear it from them.

Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force to achieve personal or social goals. If you believe that statement then you should be for more open immigration.

msparber,

One other thing. You need to check out http://www.politicalquiz.com. This shows the difference between conservatives, liberals, libertarians, moderates, and statists. The current left vs. right model is outdated and should be replaced by this diamond-shaped spectrum.

Try the quiz, and you will see that it is fairly accurate for only being 10 questions.

http://www.politicalquiz.com