• Advice the GOP had better take.

    • He makes a lot of sense. But maybe he should define,”a short period of time.

    • The GOP is history. The question is, when will conservatives/libertarians wake up and stop voting for the lesser of two Progressive evils? He nails it with Palin/West as the potential catalysts for a new party. I too would join them in a heartbeat. ◄Dave►

  • Excellent discussion on the immediate future of libertarianism vs. the dying GOP. ◄Dave►

    • I have been looking for something that exemplifies my motive for the conservative libertarian unity group. This is it. Libertarianism as described under the constitution IS the big tent and yes the constitution is a libertarian document. Thanks for sharing Dave.

  • A brief two cents worth. I’m more conservative, with a strong bent toward Tea Party. I am ardent in my support of liberty, and could be a Libertarian, except that I find their open-borders plank to be as childishly simple-minded as anything that comes from “progressives”, a name, by the way, that is the sick joke of this age, which is why I…[Read more]

    • Almost forgot – my thought was that there are more points of agreement than disagreement between the two.

    • By your self description your probably a lot like me. I self describe as conservative with libertarian leanings. Borders? Build the wall with gun turrets and shoot to kill.

  • You can be against things without wanting the government to ban them.

    You can have strong opinions without wanting to take away someone’s liberty to do those things.

    It is not against libertarianism to vocalize your opinions or “shame” bad behavior. What would be anti-libertarian would be advocating or a government ban on those b…[Read more]

  • This is encouraging. ◄Dave►

    • Hi, Alan. The √ is our substitute for a ‘Like’ button. It is basically an acknowledgement of having followed the link, or read the comment, and general agreement, without further comment. 🙂 ◄Dave►

      • √ LOL I had to do a google search just to find out how to do it after an unnamed participant started the cool little trend. If you don’t know how I’ll save you the trouble. Hold down your Alt key and type in 251 on your number pad then release Alt and there you go. √

        • Very good. I was wondering if the Favorite button was a substitute for Like. √

          • The favorite button is sort of a cue for yourself. If you see something that you may want to revisit at a later time you can favorite it. Then at the top of the activity wall you can sort by just your favorites and find it even after it’s scrolled pages and pages off the front.. You can then also remove it from the list when your done with it. The…[Read more]

            • LOL… you are giving away the cheat sheet to my intelligence test, Chris (which you passed admirably). Back in the days of DOS, before PC’s even had mice and a GUI, that was the only way one could enter an extended ASCII character. Even then, most users didn’t know the trick. I used to create ‘hidden’ directories, which were inaccessible to the D…[Read more]

        • √….Ha…I’ve been wondering how you guys were making that check, got it now.

    • Ok I’m gonna blow Dave’s little secret sky high. http://www.alt-codes.net/
      Take that wise guy. LOL 😀 Have fun all. Just don’t be like crazy Dave and use them in your name. It makes it so nobody can send you messages without going to your profile page. 😉

      • Someday you will pay for this impertinence, Chris! I adopted the moniker years ago, when participating on long open comment threads, where others could post pretending to be somebody else. I wanted to make it a little more difficult to mess with me, and make it easier to find my comments in the days before avatars. It was like a distinctive brand,…[Read more]

        • I have deemed you broad enough at the shoulders to tolerate a bit of “impertinence”. Possibly even in need of it. Call it what you will but there is no other choice in the absence of a poke button. LOL 🙂

  • I have sympathy and support all folks who believe that “social issues” have no place in politics and government shouldn’t be involved but son of a b***h! Come on. In what community, state, country, or world is stuff like this good? Those that would just shrug and say “if it feels good” simply play into the hands of…[Read more]

  • I wonder how many knee-jerk ‘law and order’ conservatives, who refuse to consider libertarianism because of the drug issue, have any idea of the unintended consequences to everyone’s liberty their support of the ‘war on drugs’ has wrought?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

    I could maybe understand…[Read more]

  • Excellent discussion… well worth the time. ◄Dave►

    • Very good. I have many more comments than I should post in a wall comment. I was glad to hear the overall tone was that morality is key to a strong social structure and a self governing people with a hat tip to religion as contributing to that.

      • I thought you would appreciate it. This is the guy who wrote the Bell Curve, so he is unafraid to tell it like he sees it. If you would like to discuss it, move it to a blog or if possible to a forum under this group. ◄Dave►

  • This activity thread has been archived here. Lets move future comments to the post format.

     

    Here’s my outside bet for 2016. What say you?

    • Bear in mind this interview is well over a year old.

      • Good interview. We could certainly do a lot worse. ◄Dave►

      • Very good interview. It is only because I know of his willingness to use government to impose his religious views on me that I am so much against him. He talks a good conservative game, especially here. But he will use the feds to bring back churches into the mainstream to practice their beliefs using my tax money.

        They are pretty much all…[Read more]

        • “I think that I remember sometime hearing him wax eloquently regarding the teaching of creationism in schools.”
          Maybe so, but have you ever heard him “wax eloquent” about stopping the teaching of Darwinism?

          Larry what are your thoughts on using the federal government to STOP states from passing laws that they see fit? We can’t disdain government…[Read more]

          • Chris….to be clear…I believe that government works best that is closest to the citizens so favor a smaller fed and states that focus on using municipal and county governments for implementation of state laws as much as possible.

            Even so, I do not expect the Federal elected officials to send money to the states without developing rules as to…[Read more]

            • Larry, you occasionally display an authoritarian streak, with acquiescence to Federal power it was never meant to have, which sometimes disturbs me. Have you ever read my “Sovereign Rights” essay? ( http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/essays/sovereign-rights/ ) I am curious, in what way would you take issue with my understanding of the hierarchy of…[Read more]

              • On about the feds doling out funds to states. EXACTLY! Where do they get the funds from in the first place and why? Any time anyone wants to send me $100 so I can send them back $50 and tell them how to spend it I’m all in for that.

                Sure some states get more than they send but they still have those strings. That’s how wealth redistribution and…[Read more]

                • As often as not, it is seed money to start another perpetual bureaucracy for a redundant program, which the State taxpayers will be on the hook for, once the initial Federal participation is phased out. Why the State politicians are so often shortsighted and keep falling for this, is beyond me. ◄Dave►

                  • It’s the carrot the feds use to get states to cede power. States can’t print money and many if not most are constitutionally bound to a balanced budget. They balance them on the federal teat. They are addicted to it.

                    • Understood; but that is like balancing one’s home budget by borrowing from a credit card, with no regard for how the increased monthly payments are going to be met, once the card reaches its limit. Shortsighted and irresponsible… ◄Dave►

                      • That’s where the senators bringing home the bacon comes in. Each state is betting that they can come out ahead at the expense of the other states. They all have to suck up as much gravy as they can so when the check finally comes they weren’t the ones ordering off the kiddie menu while the rest ate surf and turf.

                        • Yeah, but it wasn’t even mealtime, and nobody was hungry. They are partaking of the feast simply because it appears to be free, and conveniently delete the fact that their grand-kids will eventually get the tab. It is insanity. ◄Dave►

                    • …and another great example of the truisms that nothing is free and credit is the modern form of slavery. 🙂 ◄Dave►

              • I just stumbled across this link: ( http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/are-states-bound-by-supreme-court-decisions-lets-ask-thomas-jefferson/ ), which is timely to this discussion.

                It seems TJ would agree with me. I was particularly taken with:

                Jefferson wrote the following in the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions: 1. “Resolved, That the several…

                [Read more]

              • Dave….read the 14th amendment….at least twice….

                • I presume you are referring to section 2, and my assertion that there is no Federal right to vote in the Constitution. I suggest you read it again. Having freed the slaves, given them citizenship and equal protection under the law, and increased their value for the purposes of a census count to a full person rather than 3/5 of a person, it says…[Read more]

                  • All I see is a guarantee of equal treatment under the law. It doesn’t specify state or federal law and certainly no place in there does it assert that federal law is superior. To me that suggests that if the SCOTUS hears a case they must take into consideration the state laws which apply and only insure that equal treatment is being applied under…[Read more]

                • Once more I’ll say…for the last time….I want a smaller fed and more state and local control. Any interpretations by you’all to suggest otherwise is wrong.

                  • I am not quite sure what you are referring to; but any suggestion that I ever thought otherwise would also be wrong. It is quite normal now, for folks to think of the States as political subdivisions of the Federal government, and their citizens as its ‘subjects.’ I’d venture to say at least 95% of Americans unthinkingly accept that lie; but it…[Read more]

                • Personally, I don’t have any friends at NPR. I wouldn’t want to be friends with Boies; he has always been a little smarmy for my taste. 🙂

                  He is certainly wrong about one thing. Gays will not be the last minority needing to use the equal protection clause. Waiting in the wings are the polygamists. Then, I may decide that there are tax…[Read more]

                  • This one sentence speaks volumes.

                    “Eventually, the amendment would be interpreted to apply most provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government.”

                    Key word interpreted.

                    Now why wouldn’t a federal court “interpret” a law in a manner that would increase it’s power?

                    So it guarantees equal treatment under the…[Read more]

                    • Well said. Don’t get me started on anchor babies, and the deliberate misinterpretation of the clause “…under the jurisdiction thereof…” ◄Dave►

                    • After reading this thread about the constitution, rights, fed v. state, etc….I realized I am pissing against the wind because you two don’t give a damn about what is…only what you think it should be. Here I am discussing the issues based on settled law and the real world and you both are arguing what you think it should be and personally…[Read more]

                      • See, that is what I meant about your authoritarian streak, Larry? Just because the Progressives have been steadily eroding our Constitution for over a hundred years, and a bunch of pompous asses put on silly black robes and twaddle on about ‘case law’ or ‘stare decisis’ (settled law), does not change the plain meaning of our Constitution, which…[Read more]

          • Hear! Hear! ◄Dave►

        • LOL and I say this as a resident of New York state. If ever a state needed control it’s here.

        • Just one more afterthought. I have always disagreed with the notion that the US Supreme Court was the highest court of the land. It is the highest federal court in the land that was created to be the final venue of redress over issues of federal law and issues between states. State laws have no place being heard in the US Supreme Court. Every…[Read more]

          • State laws that violate federal law will always be heard in the supreme court. If constitutional rights are violated be by state law, (and they have been) than it’s a good thing.It’s when the constitution is thrown out the window and the supreme court rules on their political agenda (and they do at times) is when the abuse of power comes into…[Read more]

            • Then I guess it comes down to the federal government making laws that it has no business dealing in.

              • That I can agree with wholeheartedly. And when this happens (unconstitutional laws,Infringing on states rights etc) than it should be up to the supreme court to shoot it down. But as long as we have presidents and congress that appoints judges along party lines I don’t see that happening. The supreme court is not suppose to be political, but they…[Read more]

          • This whole issue of the growth of federal power is very much a result of the rise of the power of special interests who have successfully focused their lobbying there….they often argue that it is bad for business to have a patchwork of different state laws affecting their operations. It is sometimes very hard to argue that point….especially…[Read more]

            • We the People could end most of that, by the simple expedient of refusing to ever vote for an incumbent. That would end the legal bribery of campaign donations, and make buying a politician too risky and frequently necessary. ◄Dave►

            • Yup Larry. That’s the way it works. I sell a whole lot more at a trade show when I get all my clients in one room for three days than I ever could on the road for three days. Two shows per year for a total of six days accounts for 40% of my annual business. It works just that good.

      • Chris…not being critical but I find it somewhat amusing the way we are almost desperately searching for someone…anyone….who would have even an itty bitty chance to pull the GOP out of their death spiral…..it could be viewed as an indication of how bad the situation really is.

        • No argument from me Larry. It’s ugly. The worst is that nobody has anybody worth a crap. When Hillary is the best the dems can muster? They can talk about republicans all they want but next to Hillary is Uncle Joe. Hey maybe they could run Pelosi. Yea they have a strong field.

    • Jim DeMint was probably alright when in the Senate but after leaving it for a more plush job, I have reservations. All I get from him in the Heritage Foundation think tank is a column once in a while and asking for money in the way of donations.
      DeMint Quote; “I believed the only thing that could turn around this government spending and mounting…[Read more]

      • I have gotten to where as soon as I see the request for donations, I hit the delete button, and don’t bother reading the rest of a message from all the organizations that have somehow acquired my e-mail address. ◄Dave►

        • Same here. If and when I donate money it will be to a particular candidate and most likely tied to my state.

      • BTW yes he was ok in the senate. That’s because he was doing his job. The same as he’s doing at Heritage. Fund raising is the main function of any high position in one of those organizations. He wasn’t hired there to think. He was hired for his connections and fund raising ability. Can’t fault a guy for doing his job.

        • I don’t think a company, especially the Heritage foundation hires the president of the company because of his fund raising ability. It goes a lot deeper than that. Fund raisers are a dime a dozen. He was definitely hired for what he knows and what he thinks His interview with Chris Wallace bears that out.

          • Your probably right. I may have sounded a bit critical in my post. The thing is that in his position the health of the organization has to be his concern and I would suggest his top concern. Now matter how you cut it that takes money. When the rubber hits the road it’s his job to make sure the money comes in. Otherwise he doesn’t even have a job.…[Read more]

    • I’m working hard to see all those points as myths but it’s difficult to find examples. So far I know one but the quest continues.

      • I am not sure what you mean, Chris. Are you saying that you think the general rap on libertarians is true, and you can only spot one that is not? Which one, pray tell? ◄Dave►

        • The overall tone of the article to me seemed to reflect a tone of flexibility on a diverse range of diverse issues. Try as I might to step outside my comfort zone with libertarians I come across they seem to just stay in lock step with the program. Ron Paul (and by some genetic miracle) Rand Paul are the only two that can save the country. Beyond…[Read more]

  • Part 2 Check out part 1 below.

  • From way back in 2007. LOL before McCain was a total train wreck. Part 1

  • I’ve read a lot from Cato in the past. This is a pretty good outline of their position in the political realm. Reading between the lines it seems they are seeking some sort of alliance because self admittedly they can’t seem to gain traction on their own. I would offer to them one suggestion. They have a great asset in the youth of their…[Read more]

    • Finally, someone who puts Fox’s John Stossel in the real light.
      I particularly like this comment by Stossel
      Yet another of Mr. Stossel’s less piercing insights consists in objecting “to President Obama’s $100 million dollar [African] trip,” but consoling himself that “The Romans were worse”: “Nero traveled with 1,000 carriages
      Really!!!

      • Stossel finds his audience somewhere between “now there’s a new idea” and “so who really cares anyway”. He’s to libertarianism on Fox as Williams is to liberalism. Representing the “fair and balanced” approach. I look more to Judge Napolitano to tackle the more serious issues from the libertarian perspective but you notice his commentary is…[Read more]

  • Pretty insightful. Any thoughts from our libertarian friends on the importance of personal character in public officials? Should it matter or is it their right to behave as they wish as long as no laws are broken with no consequences?

    [Read more]

    • I suspect you mean our ‘secular’ friends, Chris. What does libertarianism have to do with it? Even then, a secularist is just as likely as a religionist to consider a candidate’s character when voting. We need not agree on the standards of morality, or their ultimate source, to have them. Weiner is a dirt bag. If his wife cannot trust him, how…[Read more]

      • No, I’m looking for the secular or non-secular libertarian opinion. As you say one does not have to be Christian or any other religion to recognize bad conduct. I’m just wondering if libertarians think such bad conduct (which injures pretty much just him) on a personal level should be held in consideration when deciding his fitness for office.

        • Oh, I see where you are coming from, Chris. You are thinking of the libertarian propensity to live and let live, and arguing against victimless crimes. I reckon there is a huge chasm between personally disapproving of someone’s behavior, perhaps choosing not to respect them, become personally involved with them, do business with them, or elect…[Read more]

          • Not even looking for anything that extreme. I may be more in tune with this because I live in NYS. I hear more of the Bill Clinton relativism. “It’s just sex” “It’s personal and not our business” Well that’s true. I could care less what the Weiner tweets as long as he’s not tweeting it to minors or unwilling recipients. That is UNTIL he wants to…[Read more]

            • This secular libertarian agrees with you completely, Chris; although since I live 3K mi. away, I could care less who the sheeple of NYC choose for their mayor. It is simply none of my business. ◄Dave►

    • One question, Chris. Can you acknowledge the validity of making such judgments in the reverse direction? I confess a profound suspicion of vocal moralists. I remember the moment I lost the last vestiges of respect I once held for sincere, if misguided, bible thumpers on the far Right. Right after 9/11, Jerry Falwell was a guest on Pat Robinson’s…[Read more]

      • My short answer? Absolutely. My long answer? They’re both nuts. Their religion has been too kind to them. The more outrageous they are the more $$$ it makes them. Tough to turn that off after half a century. Them believing what they say is about on par with Obama believing what he says.

  • Some disturbing information from a post on Facebook. I have noticed a bit of a shift in Rand Pauls “persona” of late. He seems to be turning into the crank the old man was. We’ll have to see how it goes. I always did think he was more like papa than he lets on.

    “Gregory Hilton

    Why Did Rand Paul Hire a White Supremacist? The Senator Has…[Read more]

  • Load More