I see all sorts of letters to the editor where liberals blame conservatives for our problems and Democrats blame Republicans and vice versa. I am here to say that those terms do not mean very much. So-called conservative George Bush spent money like a drunken sailor on foolish wars and bailouts and then liberal Barack Obama spends money like two drunken sailors continuing the foolish wars and even more bailouts. The one thing they all have in common is growing the size and power of the government with one story or another. I rate them all as tyrants and not fit to run a free nation.
We need a new breed of politician who wants to shrink government to its proper size and function, as defined in the constitution. I would rate such a person as a freedom lover and that is the only type of politician that we should allow to run our country.
So you decide, tyrant or freedom lover-based on what they have done in their lives, not what they say in the heat of a campaign. And if the Democrats and Republicans both give you only tyrants to choose from, go to the third parties and don't worry about wasting your vote. A vote for either tyrant is much worse than wasting a vote.
The Libertarian Party is just waiting for you'all to understand that freedom is the most important value you have. No government giveaways or social control of others is worth giving it up.
Showing posts with label Libertarian Principle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarian Principle. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Libertarian vs. Conservative
I spend a lot of time at various public events manning what we call an OPH booth (Operation Politically Homeless). We ask people to take a short quiz and then use the results to place them on a chart that shows a political spectrum. Our point being that the simple left right line is totally inadequate to show most people. If interested, you can take the quiz online at www. self-gov.org.
I often hear the question-What is the difference between conservatives and libertarians? That question is getting harder and harder to answer because the definition of conservative is so fluid. It changed drastically during the administration of W.
Nevertheless, as a minimum we can say that Libertarians agree with conservatives on most economic issues and probably free speech and press. Beyond that, there is way to much variation among conservatives to make a definitive statement.
Do conservatives believe in due process. For the most part, sure but they were easily swayed to ignore that for alleged terrorists. Thus they gave a totally unacceptable power to government to name someone as a terrorist without the need to prove the facts. We still have hundreds of prisoners in GITMO and BAGRAM whose guilt is still unknown but whose time in prison is many years. Libertarians find this not just shameful but horribly dangerous.
How about gay marriage and all the other issues around homosexuality? Libertarians are true to the freedom philosophy here. Adults may make any living and/or loving arrangements they please without interference from the state. Conservatives apparently put their ideas of a proper society ahead of freedom on this issue.
The longest running debate is about the drug war. Libertarians have always advocated personal freedom. We recognize the massive damage done to people and society from attempting to prohibit the use of mind altering substances. We learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition all too well. Conservatives believe that they have a right to tell other people what they may use for enjoyment and apparently just refuse to learn from the alcohol prohibition disaster. Indeed, I am sure there are some that would want to try alcohol prohibition again, just with more police this time.
Right now, this looks like irreconcilable differences. One can only hope that people who are basically freedom lovers will realize that there is no compromise of freedom with tyranny possible.
If you would have freedom for yourself, you must grant similar freedom for all others!
Do you really think that your freedom to practice Christianity, for example, would survive if you allowed the government to ban some other religion that you found distasteful? Once such decisions are in the hands of the government, even a democratic one, the allowed religions become a matter for majority vote. That is definitely not commensurate with freedom.
I often hear the question-What is the difference between conservatives and libertarians? That question is getting harder and harder to answer because the definition of conservative is so fluid. It changed drastically during the administration of W.
Nevertheless, as a minimum we can say that Libertarians agree with conservatives on most economic issues and probably free speech and press. Beyond that, there is way to much variation among conservatives to make a definitive statement.
Do conservatives believe in due process. For the most part, sure but they were easily swayed to ignore that for alleged terrorists. Thus they gave a totally unacceptable power to government to name someone as a terrorist without the need to prove the facts. We still have hundreds of prisoners in GITMO and BAGRAM whose guilt is still unknown but whose time in prison is many years. Libertarians find this not just shameful but horribly dangerous.
How about gay marriage and all the other issues around homosexuality? Libertarians are true to the freedom philosophy here. Adults may make any living and/or loving arrangements they please without interference from the state. Conservatives apparently put their ideas of a proper society ahead of freedom on this issue.
The longest running debate is about the drug war. Libertarians have always advocated personal freedom. We recognize the massive damage done to people and society from attempting to prohibit the use of mind altering substances. We learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition all too well. Conservatives believe that they have a right to tell other people what they may use for enjoyment and apparently just refuse to learn from the alcohol prohibition disaster. Indeed, I am sure there are some that would want to try alcohol prohibition again, just with more police this time.
Right now, this looks like irreconcilable differences. One can only hope that people who are basically freedom lovers will realize that there is no compromise of freedom with tyranny possible.
If you would have freedom for yourself, you must grant similar freedom for all others!
Do you really think that your freedom to practice Christianity, for example, would survive if you allowed the government to ban some other religion that you found distasteful? Once such decisions are in the hands of the government, even a democratic one, the allowed religions become a matter for majority vote. That is definitely not commensurate with freedom.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The Meaning of Words
Words like liberal, conservative, progressive, change over time. Parties like Democrats and Republicans change their principles over time, sometimes by takeover by stealth, sometimes by natural evolution. The main lesson for us plain folks is to never get married to the name of a philosophy or a party, blindly following it after it has abandoned the principles that brought us to it in the first place.
I decided that I was a conservative in 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran for president. I recognized that, despite what I was told during my upbringing in New York City, it was not a good idea for poor folks to be Democrats and liberals. What was best for everyone was a small, unobtrusive government that let you keep the fruits of your labor. I registered Republican at the first opportunity (age 21 at that time). Today, I have noted that the Republican Party that nominated Barry Goldwater does not exist any longer. It has drifted into something very different.
A lot of folks who spent their lives saying they were conservative apparently did not notice when a group that called themselves neoconservatives took over their movement and changed it drastically. Today, when you say you are conservative, people don’t think of a freedom lover. Today, to be recognized as a conservative, you need to support the Iraq war and future wars that the neo-cons think is right and proper. You must stand silent to the violations of due process that are everyday doings of the Bush administration. You must be in favor of government interference in interpersonal relationships. Today, if you are against the war, you must be a liberal. If you think that the government should not tell people whom to love, you must be a liberal. And you certainly cannot be a conservative, if you think that sick people can use that devil weed, marijuana to ease their suffering.
Well, I am against the war and I am not a liberal (as currently defined). I believe that the most important value of this nation is its tradition of individual freedom. We have a constitution that protects that freedom. I will support a candidate who supports individual freedom and is obedient to the constitution, no matter what his party label. I will not support a candidate who thinks that obeying the constitution is optional, no matter what his party label.
I am a Libertarian now, because it is the only party that actually takes individual freedom seriously. To prevent long term drift of the party away from this basic principle, We require a simple pledge of new members-
I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
We also have a statement of principles that requires a 7/8 vote at convention to change. We are well aware of the danger of drift and infiltration and have taken steps to slow or prevent it. Apparently the Republicans did not.
I supported Ron Paul for president and I have joined The Hope for America Coalition because these actions help to further my desire for a restoration of the individual freedom that used to by the primary feature of this nation. I care about this because I want my kids to spend their lives in freedom, not in tyranny.
I urge you all who are conservative, to ask yourselves if the Republican Party deserves your support any longer. Please don't answer that the Democrats are worse. Choosing the lesser evil, election after election, gets you the evil that is happening today. Open your mind to the Libertarian Party and its principles.
I decided that I was a conservative in 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran for president. I recognized that, despite what I was told during my upbringing in New York City, it was not a good idea for poor folks to be Democrats and liberals. What was best for everyone was a small, unobtrusive government that let you keep the fruits of your labor. I registered Republican at the first opportunity (age 21 at that time). Today, I have noted that the Republican Party that nominated Barry Goldwater does not exist any longer. It has drifted into something very different.
A lot of folks who spent their lives saying they were conservative apparently did not notice when a group that called themselves neoconservatives took over their movement and changed it drastically. Today, when you say you are conservative, people don’t think of a freedom lover. Today, to be recognized as a conservative, you need to support the Iraq war and future wars that the neo-cons think is right and proper. You must stand silent to the violations of due process that are everyday doings of the Bush administration. You must be in favor of government interference in interpersonal relationships. Today, if you are against the war, you must be a liberal. If you think that the government should not tell people whom to love, you must be a liberal. And you certainly cannot be a conservative, if you think that sick people can use that devil weed, marijuana to ease their suffering.
Well, I am against the war and I am not a liberal (as currently defined). I believe that the most important value of this nation is its tradition of individual freedom. We have a constitution that protects that freedom. I will support a candidate who supports individual freedom and is obedient to the constitution, no matter what his party label. I will not support a candidate who thinks that obeying the constitution is optional, no matter what his party label.
I am a Libertarian now, because it is the only party that actually takes individual freedom seriously. To prevent long term drift of the party away from this basic principle, We require a simple pledge of new members-
I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
We also have a statement of principles that requires a 7/8 vote at convention to change. We are well aware of the danger of drift and infiltration and have taken steps to slow or prevent it. Apparently the Republicans did not.
I supported Ron Paul for president and I have joined The Hope for America Coalition because these actions help to further my desire for a restoration of the individual freedom that used to by the primary feature of this nation. I care about this because I want my kids to spend their lives in freedom, not in tyranny.
I urge you all who are conservative, to ask yourselves if the Republican Party deserves your support any longer. Please don't answer that the Democrats are worse. Choosing the lesser evil, election after election, gets you the evil that is happening today. Open your mind to the Libertarian Party and its principles.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Why I Support Dr Ron Paul for President
What follows is a transcript of a speech that I gave on 12/07/07 at a caucus held under the auspices of the National Presidential Caucus. It was designated as a Republican Caucus for Johnson County, KS
Dr Paul is the only Republican candidate who is unequivocally against the Iraq War and who pledges to bring the troops home with all deliberate and safe speed. He understands that the war in Iraq was pointless, illegal, unconstitutional and a moral horror.
The vast majority of the US public agrees with this. What chance does any other Republican candidate have to beat the Democrats while arguing for continued war?
The war has brought us only bad. We have lost roughly 4000 US soldiers, killed Iraqis totaling close to a million and displaced more than 2 million. This has won us no hearts and minds. Rather it has made us new enemies. Every dead Iraqi has an extended family who wants revenge.
How do the other Republican candidates, who wear their pro-life credentials proudly when it comes to abortion, have no problem with killing innocent Iraqis?
We have increased our national debt by almost $1 trillion to achieve these dubious results. This huge increase in the debt, coupled with runaway spending at home, has placed our economic future in grave peril. The dollar is collapsing before our very eyes. The Federal Reserve is out of options. Their trick of creating new money out of thin air doesn’t fool the suckers any longer.
Dr Paul understands that money only works as a store of value if it is commodity based. Fiat money, like we have now, has a 100% historic failure rate. It always, eventually, inflates away to nothingness.
Conservative Republican candidates always tell us they want a small government and strict constructionist judges. This is their talk, but that is not their walk. Violations of the constitution are an every day event.
Where in the constitution does is say that:
• The president can lock people up without charge or trial
• Wiretaps can occur without search warrants
• People can be kidnapped from one country (without extradition) and sent to another for torture
• The Federal government can have anything to say about anything not on the short list of functions in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution
Our freedom is melting away as we look. We are significantly less free than 6 years ago. We can not stand idly by. We owe it to our children to give them as much freedom as we inherited from our parents. The only candidate who will help us get that freedom back is Dr Ron Paul.
Dr Paul is the only Republican candidate who is unequivocally against the Iraq War and who pledges to bring the troops home with all deliberate and safe speed. He understands that the war in Iraq was pointless, illegal, unconstitutional and a moral horror.
The vast majority of the US public agrees with this. What chance does any other Republican candidate have to beat the Democrats while arguing for continued war?
The war has brought us only bad. We have lost roughly 4000 US soldiers, killed Iraqis totaling close to a million and displaced more than 2 million. This has won us no hearts and minds. Rather it has made us new enemies. Every dead Iraqi has an extended family who wants revenge.
How do the other Republican candidates, who wear their pro-life credentials proudly when it comes to abortion, have no problem with killing innocent Iraqis?
We have increased our national debt by almost $1 trillion to achieve these dubious results. This huge increase in the debt, coupled with runaway spending at home, has placed our economic future in grave peril. The dollar is collapsing before our very eyes. The Federal Reserve is out of options. Their trick of creating new money out of thin air doesn’t fool the suckers any longer.
Dr Paul understands that money only works as a store of value if it is commodity based. Fiat money, like we have now, has a 100% historic failure rate. It always, eventually, inflates away to nothingness.
Conservative Republican candidates always tell us they want a small government and strict constructionist judges. This is their talk, but that is not their walk. Violations of the constitution are an every day event.
Where in the constitution does is say that:
• The president can lock people up without charge or trial
• Wiretaps can occur without search warrants
• People can be kidnapped from one country (without extradition) and sent to another for torture
• The Federal government can have anything to say about anything not on the short list of functions in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution
Our freedom is melting away as we look. We are significantly less free than 6 years ago. We can not stand idly by. We owe it to our children to give them as much freedom as we inherited from our parents. The only candidate who will help us get that freedom back is Dr Ron Paul.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Pro-War Libertarians?
Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Randy Barnett, a self proclaimed libertarian in which he chided anti-war libertarians as giving libertarianism a bad name. He specifically had it in for Ron Paul whose candidacy, he thought, would set back the cause of libertarianism by scaring off the pro-war folks.
The logic was so perverse that I was moved to write a Letter to the Editor. Alas, my letter was not published so I am reproducing it below for your reading pleasure.
Start letter:
Randy Barnett in "Libertarians and the War", (7/17/2007) sure has a funny idea of Libertarian philosophy and moral standards.
The first principle of a libertarian is non-aggression. One must never initiate force against another. Clearly this leaves plenty of room for self defense, where the other party initiated the force. So, to determine the morality of the Iraq War, we must ask ourselves if the force we applied to Iraq and its people was, in fact justified as self defense. If it was not, it is mass murder.
Mr. Barnett attempts to paint a picture where our nation, having been attacked by a handful of Muslims on 9/11 and some earlier incidents where the number of aggressors was small, can now attack all or any of 800 million Muslims in the world and call it self defense.
I think not! This is using the principle of group guilt. This is the same principle used by Hitler to massacre Jews and Stalin to kill any anti-communists he could find. This is not a fit principle for this nation or any nation that claims the moral high ground.
We also know that the first excuse given for the invasion, to defend ourselves against the imminent use of Weapons of Mass Destruction was not just false, it was known false by our government as it was being claimed. We are probably approaching one million dead souls from this war and all that blood is on the hands of this administration.
Anyone who self identifies himself as a Libertarian but thinks the invasion of Iraq was justified needs a refresher course in our principles. Congressman Paul understands these principles quite well and none of the other Republican candidates even comes close.
The logic was so perverse that I was moved to write a Letter to the Editor. Alas, my letter was not published so I am reproducing it below for your reading pleasure.
Start letter:
Randy Barnett in "Libertarians and the War", (7/17/2007) sure has a funny idea of Libertarian philosophy and moral standards.
The first principle of a libertarian is non-aggression. One must never initiate force against another. Clearly this leaves plenty of room for self defense, where the other party initiated the force. So, to determine the morality of the Iraq War, we must ask ourselves if the force we applied to Iraq and its people was, in fact justified as self defense. If it was not, it is mass murder.
Mr. Barnett attempts to paint a picture where our nation, having been attacked by a handful of Muslims on 9/11 and some earlier incidents where the number of aggressors was small, can now attack all or any of 800 million Muslims in the world and call it self defense.
I think not! This is using the principle of group guilt. This is the same principle used by Hitler to massacre Jews and Stalin to kill any anti-communists he could find. This is not a fit principle for this nation or any nation that claims the moral high ground.
We also know that the first excuse given for the invasion, to defend ourselves against the imminent use of Weapons of Mass Destruction was not just false, it was known false by our government as it was being claimed. We are probably approaching one million dead souls from this war and all that blood is on the hands of this administration.
Anyone who self identifies himself as a Libertarian but thinks the invasion of Iraq was justified needs a refresher course in our principles. Congressman Paul understands these principles quite well and none of the other Republican candidates even comes close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)