Posts Tagged ‘libertarian’

Rand Paul and Personal Liberty

Posted by Troy on 15th March 2013 in Political

I’m sure he’s been reading the Swamp Fox.  Yes, the right wing party is officially dead if they are thinking that they can promote conservative values.  The Democratic party has been very effective at dividing us up into various groups and getting people to support their party based on special interest.  The only return the Republicans can have is to say that they are for economic and personal freedom.  You see, the Democrats have been offering personal freedom, and that’s what the people seem to value more than economic freedom.  That being said, if someone offered personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, that would be a selling point.  I think the vast majority of Americans want to have a balanced budget and get our house in order, but they also want the government to stay out of their business.  I couldn’t agree more.

Love Live the Constitution!

Where the Republicans went wrong

Posted by Troy on 21st February 2013 in Current Events, Political

I’ve been thinking about why the Democrats have continued to beat Republicans despite the fact that the majority of their platform is contrary to the majority of Americans.  I think I finally figured out the answer.  It is because the Democratic party is the grab bag of passionate causes.

You want to help the environment?  Well, the Democrats will do that.

You want to ban guns/end gun violence?  Well, the Democrats will do that.

You want to women’s right?  The Democrats

Gay rights?  Democrats

Animal rights?  Democrats

Pornography?  Democrats

Legalized _______?  Democrats

Socialism?  Democrats

So forth so forth.  What do Republicans offer in exchange?  Low taxes?  Fiscal responsibility?  Personal responsibility?  Those aren’t sexy at all, are they?  There’s no “hot button” issue that the Republicans can lay claim to.  If you are for strong immigration control or traditional marriage, you get tarred and feathered as a racist or hate monger.  If you’re for a strong national defense, war monger.  If you’re against the Law of the Sea Treaty, fish monger.  So many mongers out there.  If you’re in for the whole bag, I guess you’re a mongrel monger.

I think that’s why you are starting to see a rise in the interest of Libertarianism.   Liberty is something you can be passionate about.  While I’m extremely passionate about the Constitution, it’s hard to get the young people to be passionate about it…until they comprehend that it is the truest path to real Liberty.  If the Republicans are to have any future, they will have to embrace this part of of their constituency.  Only a Libertarian can carry a national election (such as Ron or Rand Paul).  They need to run Conservatives in the South and Libertarians elsewhere if they are to have a shot.

Many would claim that Libertarians can exist on both sides of the aisle.  These people are fooling themselves.  A Libertarian can pull people that typically vote Democrat or Republican, but a Libertarian must, by definition, hate nearly every part of the Democratic agenda.  The Democratic Party is by nature a big government party.  They are for higher taxes, taking a bigger and bigger portion of the overall economy.  In exchange for this, more goods and services will be offered for “free” to the public.  The price of these “free” products is never ending servitude to the party as they can always take it away from you.  Once you’ve become dependent on these “benefits,” it’s very hard to give them up.  As such, you’ve become a little more than a slave.

Long Live the Constitution!

Ron Paul and the 2012 election

Posted by Troy on 27th August 2012 in Current Events, Political

First, I supported Ron Paul.  That being said, we should not do any sort of write-in campaign.  Should Obama win in 2012, there will not be a country left to save by 2016.  The fact of the matter is that Libertarians currently have no shot of winning a Presidential election.  That is sad but true.  However, what is more useful is to go after House seats.  These are manageable elections that we can win.  In particular, Libertarians should reach out to the Tea Party.  While they are most often associated with Conservatives, you will find that the average Tea Partier is more in line with Libertarianism and Constitutionalism.  Libertarians should try to gain power inside the Republican Party (do remember that Ron Paul is technically a Republican).  While I do think that Libertarians appeal to Republicans and Democrats, I do not think that Libertarians can be Democrats.  The current Democrat schematic is for greater entitlements and greater government spending.  This necessitates greater regulations, laws, and bureaucracy–these are tenements that cannot be reconciled with Libertarianism.  If Libertarians have more Legislative seats, we can turn back bad laws.  We can also trim down government spending.  Finally, we can audit the Federal Reserve.  However, if Obama wins, we are toast.  Understand that I understand where you are coming from, but we must be patient.  We need to win district after district in the primaries.  We need to become a regional force.  Then we will push to become a national force.  After that, then we can try for the White House.  If we try for it now, the only thing that will happen is that Obama will win re-election, and then there is nothing left to save.  Our nuclear arsenal will be further diminished.  We will give up more sovereignty to the UN.  We will continue to print worthless money destroying our dollar.  We will gain so much debt that it will be in surmountable.  There will be no possibility to remove Obamacare which will completely wreck our entire economy.

Long Live the Constitution!

Fake Libertarian Ron Paul and Abortion

Posted by Troy on 25th February 2012 in Political

Lawrence O’Donnell has called Ron Paul, the most famous Libertarian in America (with the possible exclusion of Clint Eastwood), a false Libertarian because Ron Paul does not believe in abortion.  Last time I checked, Ron Paul’s stance is that abortion laws should be left up to the states to determine.  However, let me dissect O’Donnell’s arguement.

The first thing I would like to discuss is that it would appear as though, to be a Libertarian, one must live an chaotic (or anarchist if you prefer) existence devoid of any right or wrong.  A Libertarian doesn’t think the government should be making decisions on morality.  This is the sphere of the populace and churches, not of government.  Instead, Libertarians believe that governments should be concerned with protecting the rights and liberties of citizens against internal and external threats.  This is the form of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Most of the Federal powers were intended to cover dealings with foreign nations and matters which concerned more than one state.  The states themselves were meant to go about making their own laws.  In fact, this almost makes a market place for states in which they must compete.  If people want gay marriage, they will move to Massachusetts.  If they want no income taxes, they will move to Texas.  It also would prevent the nation from being dragged under by debt.  A poorly managed state can go bankrupt without destroying the country…but the same cannot be said if the country itself goes broke.

A common misconception is that Libertarians are against any government and any laws.  As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, this is not true.  Libertarians believe that the government is set into place to safeguard individuals rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  How then does the Libertarian, Ron Paul, reconcile his beliefs about abortion with his political ideology?  This is so easy it shouldn’t even have to be discussed.  This is done by defining when life begins.  To Ron Paul, life begins at conception.  If this is the view he has, he has to be concerned about the rights of the baby to its life.  I believe that the abortion debate depends largely on this definition.  If one believes life starts at conception, then abortion is murder.  It can have no other definition.  Therefore, most pro-choice people depend on the definition that life begins at birth.

People behave as though abortion is an abomination of the modern era.  It is not.  The Hippocratic Oath stated that a physician will not give a woman an abortion.  Of course, doctors have chosen to cherry pick which of the oaths they want to follow, but that is beside the point.  This means that the practice of abortion has been around since before Christ.  In nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, infanticide was a common practice.  A mother could only carry one child.  If she had two children and both could not walk, she would kill one if they had to move.  Sparta also killed infants which were deformed.  My question then becomes: “Is the definition of when life begins cultural?”  If a pro-choice person was dropped into such a culture and saw a mother smother a three month old to death, would they view it as a matter of choice or a matter of murder?  A three month old is just as dependent on its mother (or another adult) to live as a fetus in the womb.  Is it moral for someone to kill the three month old but not a third trimester baby?  What about premature births? I assume that the difference must be argued that a baby in the womb only has one means of support, that of the mother.  A three month old could, technically, be passed on to someone else.  Of course, this means that it is only murder if a suitable caregiver could be located for the child.

Some believe that Ron Paul is a sexist because he doesn’t support abortion.  Why on Earth are these viewed as mutually exclusive?  I am sure that Ron Paul believes that women should have equal opportunities and equal protection under the law and equal pay for equal work.  However, as I mentioned before, if he believes that a baby is alive pre-birth, he must also be against abortion.  Only Democrats and members of NOW believe that being pro-woman necessitates being pro-choice.  Isn’t it interesting that no one is calling for greater personal responsibility?  Oh, they will always throw the “What if they were raped?” scenario out there, but how often is that the case?  I find it hard to believe that most abortions are rape related.  Equating the right of contraception (and I don’t know of anybody that thinks that only men should have access to contraception) and abortion to equality is silly.  This format means that men want to prevent women from having an abortion as a means of control, i.e. that they can knock a girl up and force her to marry him and stay at home and raise the kids.  This is the single most moronic thing I’ve ever heard of.  No one believes this, or is it anybody’s reason for being pro-life.  Pro-lifers are pro-lifers for one reason only: They believe that the fetus in the womb is a live human being and is granted all the rights of any other living being.  It has nothing to do with women’s rights.  Also, the sexual revolution (the pill, etc) has led to a culture in which casual sex is the norm.  I should image that most sexual encounters in the past were between people who knew and cared for one another.  An unplanned pregnancy could result in a successful marriage.  This is not the case of unplanned pregnancies which result from purely casual sex or recreational sex.  So we have traded the right to have meaningless sex, a mere moment’s pleasure here and there, for a lifetime of hardship.  This seems like a bad bargain.  It would be far better if both men and women refrained from having sex unless it is with someone with whom they would not mind having a baby, if a pregnancy were to occur despite precautions.

Let us next consider the whole concept of “choice.”  If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it is a matter of choice.  If the father slips something into her drink to cause a miscarriage, it is treated as a murder (in most states), and I believe that Democrats and members of NOW would demand that these cases be treated as murder and not as a civil case for loss of property.  So, that means that it is only a matter of choice when the woman decides (“My body, my choice”).  Fair enough, would Democrats and NOW be for allowing men to sue for an abortion then?  That is to say, if a man does not want to be inconvenienced with raising a child or making child support payments, can he sue to force a woman to have an abortion?  I bet the vast majority of Democrats and NOW members would find the concept abhorrent.  Why then cannot the man make the argument that “It is her body and her choice.  I told her that she should have an abortion.  As such, if she has the baby, it is her choice to do so, and I should not have to pay a cost for her choosing to have a baby when she could have just as easily chosen not to have a baby?”  I don’t think that Democrats and NOW would be up for that either.

I am not arguing the morality or immorality of abortion.  I am merely pointing out that Ron Paul’s stance is much more consistent than that of a pro-choice person.  The Libertarian does not withhold moral judgement of a person’s action.  They merely seek laws that protect one person’s rights against that of another.  A Libertarian can believe that prostitution should not be illegal for a variety of reasons but still say that going to prostitutes is wrong.  In America, you can burn Bibles, and it is free speech.  Virtually no one will hurt you, even though most people (including non-Christians) would say that doing so is distasteful and would frown upon such activities.  Try doing that in a Muslim country with the Koran, and see what happens.  In both countries, it is believed that you shouldn’t burn these books.  However, in one you are punished for doing this and the other you are not.  In no way does Ron Paul’s stance of abortion makes him a false Libertarian.

Long Live the Constitution!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbcs-odonnell-rips-fake-libertarian-ron-paul-over-contraception-abortion/

Eastwood – Norris in 2012

Posted by Troy on 6th February 2012 in Current Events

I would love a Clint Eastwood/Chuck Norris ticket in 2012.  The campaign just writes itself.  ”Kicking ass and taking names in 2012.”  ”Make my day.”  ”The only thing the debt fears is Chuck Norris.”  etc.  Just goes on and on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FSP15OIwn4&feature=related

However, there are a lot of people upset over the Chrysler ad by Eastwood.  They think that is supporting Obama.  If you know anything about Eastwood, he is a Libertarian and tends to vote Republican.  He has also said that he was not impressed with Obama.  If you listen to this ad, it is pure Eastwood.  It is about fortitude and resilience and a love of the American Spirit.  Of course Chrysler will be in favor of the bailout that helped keep them alive, but nothing that Eastwood says can be taken in any way shape or form to be pro-Obama unless that’s just what you want to hear.

Eastwood/Norris 2012, “You feel lucky?”

The Problem with Ron Paul

Posted by Troy on 20th December 2011 in Current Events, Political

I think the real problem with Ron Paul is that he does a bad job of defending his positions.  I think this is because he is trying to make clever quips like Newt does.  For instance:

“Why do we care if Iran gets a nuke?”

What he probably means to say is:

“Look, they are going to keep trying to get a nuke.  The only way to stop them, really, is to go to war and wipe them off the face of the Earth.  The cost of this war will probably be hundreds of billions of dollars (if not a trillion) and 20,000 dead troops.  We can do this, or we can tell them, “If you get a nuke and use it, we are going to use our own nukes against you and wipe you off the face of the Earth.  If you try to invade another country, we will be there to confront you as well.  As you can see, there is no real benefit for spending the money for the bomb because, if you use it, you’re dead.  Thank you.”

Few countries are as bat shit crazy as North Korea, and not even they used the bomb on their enemies because we will blow them off the map and they know it.

If Ron Paul would phrase his arguments this way, I think people would like him more.