LIB-ertarian Johnson has Lib Meltdown

[jrodefeld]

You are one seriously obtuse individual!
My point was, and if you had any historical reference, which you do not, you'd have realized the early 70s were nothing like today, where the two party system is now leftist, but still had America's best interests at heart back then.
It was for this reason the Libertarian party was viewed more as divisive than anything, and if you even had a clue what the hippie movement was all about, you'd know that it was created by Marxists with one goal, creating distrust and division in AMERICA.
"Anyone over 30 was the enemy", and no, that was not just some harmless saying, it was an ax strike between patriarchy and the next generation, add in the Libertarian movement to the equation and one can easily surmise what was driving the movement.

However, that does not detract from it's Founding principles which I posted, but with an understanding of the historical connection to the times and the movement itself, it's safe to assume distrust in its agenda, especially considering the age of those pushing the idealist program and the division between the generations at the time.
Yes, the generation gap was an impediment at the time, and if you had been exposed to the era, you'd see just how much damage the Marxists did to the Baby Boomer generation, and why we despise anything tied to the left.
You yourself even posted a brief timeline of the party's decay to the left with it's short history of candidates.
This is the point I'm trying to make, the movements platform was never meant to be an anarchist movement, but that's the direction the Millennial want to take it because they despise both party's, they think they can somehow magically remove govt from the picture and we'll all live in Utopia.

If the left had not done as much damage to the nation as it has, and had the nation rejected the policies of Marxists, the libertarian party might have take a more legitimate place in politics, but moving it left was no accident. The GOP needed it to be an incompetent force, hence Johnson, and the Marxist Dims need it to go away because it's syphoning off their base with it's anti govt approach.
In other words, anyone that supports its leftist drift, is nothing more than pawns by the party's in power.

I'd be willing to bet John Stossel is in total agreement with what I'm saying. He's the type of Libertarian you want to be attracting, not a bunch of pissed off lib kiddies.

What your saying is incoherent.  On the one hand, you're praising the original Libertarian Platform and saying that libertarianism drifted left-ward over time.  But then you're also saying that the party was started by a bunch of hippie, counter-culture Leftists (who somehow also drafted a great platform). 

It is very wrong to claim that taking libertarianism in an anarchist direction is some new idea dreamed up by Leftist millennials.  Let me ask you an honest question.

Do you know who Murray Rothbard was?  He was the most important libertarian intellectual of the second half of the 20th century.  He was the originator of modern libertarian anarchism.  He referred to it as "anarcho-capitalism".  He was instrumental in the founding of the Libertarian Party and the drafting of it's original platform, which you have praised.

It is true that the Libertarian Party was not based explicitly on anarcho-capitalism, but people have recognized the important contribution of libertarian anarchist thought within the movement.

Murray Rothbard later became disillusioned with some elements of the "official" libertarian movement within Washington D.C.  In particular, he broke away from Reason magazine and the Cato Institute.  These "inside-the-beltway" libertarian think tanks wanted to boost the contributions of Frederick Hayek and downplay the importance of Ludwig von Mises, while Rothbard contend that Mises was by far the more important intellectual figure.  With Lew Rockwell, he formed the Mises Institute in the 1980s.  The Mises Institute was, and continues to be, much more radical and more principled than the "beltway" think tanks like The Cato Institute. 

And, interestingly, the Mises Institute has been far more welcoming to social conservatism and Christianity even while being more openly in favor of anarchism and radical libertarianism.  They are less "Left" than most other libertarian think tanks.

I've already conceded that Gary Johnson is "leftist" on gay marriage, on anti-discrimination laws, on certain environmental policies and a number of other issues.  But this does not indicate that the party has sharply moved to the left over time.  I'd say the party makes up largely the same percentage of disparate groups and factions that it always has.

Do you think Ron Paul, Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik are Leftists?  What about Mary Ruwart, who has been heavily involved in the Libertarian Party over the past couple decades?

Furthermore, I'd like to mention that libertarians of my age were far more likely to have been converted to libertarianism through Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, where he ran as a Republican.  If you claim Ron Paul is a Leftist, then you have no idea what Left and Right really mean.

I like John Stossel, but he is supporting Gary Johnson. 

What I'd really like to know is why you would feel more comfortable staying within the Republican Party than in the company of other libertarians?  You might say that libertarians, and in particular the Libertarian Party, have been entirely ineffective in instituting any real change, but the same could be said for so-called "Constitutional Conservatives" who, despite all evidence to the contrary, think that the Republican Party can be a vehicle to shrink government and get back to Constitutional principles.

[Billy's bayonet]

For a libertarian, force is legitimate to enforce JUST law.  Without the State, there will still be courts, police and security forces and law. So it doesn't matter if some people don't want to voluntarily submit to the common law which prohibits them from committing aggression against their fellow man.  If they choose to act in violation of libertarian law, the private police and courts WILL use force to restrain them and compel restitution from them, and rightly so.



The US Government spends more money on it's military than the next seven countries combined.

The next country on that list is China, and if we cut our military budget in half, we'd STILL be spending more money than China by a considerable margin.  Furthermore, our economic inter-dependency with China makes it highly unlikely that we'd enter into any sort of military confrontation with them.  Remember, when goods cross borders, armies don't.

Who are you so afraid of that you don't think we could stand to significantly cut our military spending?  Don't tell me your honestly afraid of terrorism?  Yep, I guess ISIS warrants an annual expense of $600 Billion to adequately defend against. 

So let me see if I got this straight, Libertarians are against any law they don;t personally promulgate or any justice system they don't design....Check.....I presume in this Lbertarian Utopia Mala en Se laws will still be on the books, hopefully.
And if you are going to get PRIVATE POLICE AND COURTS to carry out your enforcement....congratulations, you have just created a corrupt Fiat Govt/State....Research the 19th Century range wars in the Western USA and especially the Johnson county war where this very thing happened in TERRITORIES not yet states....Ranchers hire private "police" actually gunfighters and hired killers, to enforce "their law"owned the courts etc.  I could go on to extrapolate about your Pie in the Sky libertarian run courts but the facts from the range wars is a prime example why it won't work, because ANY SYSTEM man institutes WILL grow corrupt given time, once again the strongest the richest and the most violent rule or take over. HUMAN NATURE trumps any idealistic versions of the Libertarian model. History proves that time and again.

As far as your response to the Military you have not proven anything or qualified your experience to make your conclusions. All you have done is quote some stats on spending and run on about what am I or (we) afraid of, inferring terrorism isn't a biggie blah blah. And Russia and CHina spend less in their military so we shouldn't. You really beleive Stats provided by either of those countries? You need to evaluate the THREAT ACCESSMENT from Hostile countrys or organizations such as ISIS NoT HOW MUCH THEY SPEND WHICH PROBABLY ISN'T ACCURATE TO BEGIN WITH.

Newsflash.  Military spending doesn't mean Jack....THE MOST FURIOUS MIND WINS BATTLES OR A WAR. That's is true for individual single combat hand to hand or armies or terrorists using utter ruthlessness to conquer. I learned this during the vietnam war where the enemy used everything, the land, the climate, Psy ops, vine ropes and pieces of Bamboo to fight with and often defeated well trained, well equipped army with the best weapons and technology. I believe right now America no longer has the most furious mind, nor the collective will to do what is necessary to defend itself from enemies within or without. In this regard I fear the foolishness of my fellow man and his stupidity more than I fear ISIS or IRan or CHina or any other hostile country.

[jrodefeld]

So let me see if I got this straight, Libertarians are against any law they don;t personally promulgate or any justice system they don't design....Check.....I presume in this Lbertarian Utopia Mala en Se laws will still be on the books, hopefully.
And if you are going to get PRIVATE POLICE AND COURTS to carry out your enforcement....congratulations, you have just created a corrupt Fiat Govt/State....Research the 19th Century range wars in the Western USA and especially the Johnson county war where this very thing happened in TERRITORIES not yet states....Ranchers hire private "police" actually gunfighters and hired killers, to enforce "their law"owned the courts etc.  I could go on to extrapolate about your Pie in the Sky libertarian run courts but the facts from the range wars is a prime example why it won't work, because ANY SYSTEM man institutes WILL grow corrupt given time, once again the strongest the richest and the most violent rule or take over. HUMAN NATURE trumps any idealistic versions of the Libertarian model. History proves that time and again.

As far as your response to the Military you have not proven anything or qualified your experience to make your conclusions. All you have done is quote some stats on spending and run on about what am I or (we) afraid of, inferring terrorism isn't a biggie blah blah. And Russia and CHina spend less in their military so we shouldn't. You really beleive Stats provided by either of those countries? You need to evaluate the THREAT ACCESSMENT from Hostile countrys or organizations such as ISIS NoT HOW MUCH THEY SPEND WHICH PROBABLY ISN'T ACCURATE TO BEGIN WITH.

Newsflash.  Military spending doesn't mean Jack....THE MOST FURIOUS MIND WINS BATTLES OR A WAR. That's is true for individual single combat hand to hand or armies or terrorists using utter ruthlessness to conquer. I learned this during the vietnam war where the enemy used everything, the land, the climate, Psy ops, vine ropes and pieces of Bamboo to fight with and often defeated well trained, well equipped army with the best weapons and technology. I believe right now America no longer has the most furious mind, nor the collective will to do what is necessary to defend itself from enemies within or without. In this regard I fear the foolishness of my fellow man and his stupidity more than I fear ISIS or IRan or CHina or any other hostile country.

In the first place, everything you argued about man's nature would provide more support for my position than yours.  There is no Utopia, I've never used the word and neither should you.  It is a smear term that merely poisons the well.  Given man's nature, there will be many problems in any human society given all that we know about human nature.  The anarchist merely contends that the problems that exist naturally are made exponentially worse with the establishment of a State, rather than ameliorated.

This is how law and order in a Stateless society would likely function.  Individuals and communities would freely contract with security services that are provided on the market.  These private police would be tasked with protecting the property of their clients and identifying any violators for potential prosecution.  Different security agencies would be competing on the market for clients and if one agency fails to keep the peace, prevent burglaries, rapes, homicides and so forth, then they can be fired and a more competent security service can be hired in their place.  This competition would incentivize innovation and improve the service.

Since we live in a world of scarcity, conflict is inevitable so private arbitration agencies would be provided to settle disputes.  Suppose a criminal stole something from you.  Your private security company would instigate an investigation to determine who the perpetrator was.  With the aid of security cameras and other technology, they would likely be able to determine who committed the aggression.  At the very least they'd be FAR more likely to be able to determine who committed the crime than Socialist police in a Statist society, since they'd be funded by voluntary customers and face competition from other firms.

Then you'd take this evidence to an arbitration service, who would issue a warrant for the arrest of the perpetrator.  The court proceedings would occur largely the same as they do under State courts.  If the defendant is found to be guilty he can be compelled to pay restitution to the victim.

Crucially, the dispute arbitration agencies in a free society would be basing their decision on the concepts of Justice, Natural Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle.

After a series of rulings by respected arbitration agencies, Common Law is developed through the adherence to precedent.  Law is not something that should be legislated and thought up by politicians, but rather is to be discovered through the adjudication of disputes.  Hard cases will be hashed out in court proceedings the various decisions will be codified by legal scholars into a general understanding of what the "law" is. 

Just as there was no central planning for the English language, but rather dictionary manufacturers simply catalog the commonly used words which describe different things, law would develop in this natural way.

There are a million reasons why private armies wouldn't just rise up and do open battle with each other without a State.  I'd suggest you read a little of the anarchist libertarian literature for the reasons.  Robert Higgs, Hans Hermann-Hoppe and Robert P. Murphy have written important articles and books on the subject of libertarian anarchism.


As for the military argument, you are moving the goal posts.  My contention was that we could easily cut our military spending by 50-60% and be able to defend ourselves just as well, if not better than we currently can.  You didn't address that point, but moved on to speaking about how winning battles is dependent on having a "furious mind" or a level of ruthlessness that you think we currently lack.  Okay, then you concede that we don't need to spend anywhere near the amount of money we currently do on our military?

Seriously, what are you concerned about as far as national security threats?  Frankly, if your primary fear is ISIS or Islamic terrorism, you would be laughed out of the room by anyone who knows the first thing about terrorism.  Not to say that there is NO threat from Islamic terrorism, but the threat is largely blowback from US military interventions into the Middle East.  If we stopped intervening into those countries, the already minute threat posed by Islamic terrorism would be greatly reduced.

[Billy's bayonet]

Since we live in a world of scarcity, conflict is inevitable so private arbitration agencies would be provided to settle disputes.  Suppose a criminal stole something from you.  Your private security company would instigate an investigation to determine who the perpetrator was.  With the aid of security cameras and other technology, they would likely be able to determine who committed the aggression.  At the very least they'd be FAR more likely to be able to determine who committed the crime than Socialist police in a Statist society, since they'd be funded by voluntary customers and face competition from other firms.

Then you'd take this evidence to an arbitration service, who would issue a warrant for the arrest of the perpetrator.  The court proceedings would occur largely the same as they do under State courts.  If the defendant is found to be guilty he can be compelled to pay restitution to the victim.

Crucially, the dispute arbitration agencies in a free society would be basing their decision on the concepts of Justice, Natural Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle.

After a series of rulings by respected arbitration agencies, Common Law is developed through the adherence to precedent.  Law is not something that should be legislated and thought up by politicians, but rather is to be discovered through the adjudication of disputes.  Hard cases will be hashed out in court proceedings the various decisions will be codified by legal scholars into a general understanding of what the "law" is. 

Just as there was no central planning for the English language, but rather dictionary manufacturers simply catalog the commonly used words which describe different things, law would develop in this natural way.

There are a million reasons why private armies wouldn't just rise up and do open battle with each other without a State.  I'd suggest you read a little of the anarchist libertarian literature for the reasons.  Robert Higgs, Hans Hermann-Hoppe and Robert P. Murphy have written important articles and books on the subject of libertarian anarchism.


As for the military argument, you are moving the goal posts.  My contention was that we could easily cut our military spending by 50-60% and be able to defend ourselves just as well, if not better than we currently can.  You didn't address that point, but moved on to speaking about how winning battles is dependent on having a "furious mind" or a level of ruthlessness that you think we currently lack.  Okay, then you concede that we don't need to spend anywhere near the amount of money we currently do on our military?

Seriously, what are you concerned about as far as national security threats?  Frankly, if your primary fear is ISIS or Islamic terrorism, you would be laughed out of the room by anyone who knows the first thing about terrorism.  Not to say that there is NO threat from Islamic terrorism, but the threat is largely blowback from US military interventions into the Middle East.  If we stopped intervening into those countries, the already minute threat posed by Islamic terrorism would be greatly reduced.

well thought out but still a failure, private police would not be any more efficient than "socialist" police.  We Do have private security firms....I ought to know as I've managed/owned a few of them and have spent time in related professions specifically private investigator, bodyguard and bail recovery agent. Coupled with 25 years in "socialist" State Law enforcement I think I know better than you how each functions and to what degree of efficiency.

One of the great problems in our society is the issue of Jurisdiction, criminals have no jurisdictional lines, no boundries. They use such to thwart "Socialist" Police as well as private security. Private security would be bound by the invisible wall mandated by the client (s) who hired them. Here we go again with Cattle Barons hiring Gunfighters to protect your cattle, not your neighbors twenty miles away on  t he next ranch.Hunting down criminals is expensive, I seriously doubt you'd want to pay the price tag to have your  stolen camera and wide screen TV recovered what it would cost Private security officers to run them down. ABandoning their post in favor of persuit. It was my experience in Private security that CLients were only willing to pay for bargain basement security, that means the lowest bidder, that means the least paid officers, that means the laziest, most inefficient and ineffective firms usually win the contract. Private security is riddled with incompetence for these reasons, your wishful thinking Libertarian idealism isn't going to change it either.

I'm not conceding anything regarding Military spending, I will point out that increasing technology grows more sophisticated, therefore more expensive.  Weapons systems and support will only increase in cost....some of that free market capitalism we ought to be so proud of.  You have no idea the impact a 40 OR even 50% cut would make in our Military EFFECTIVENESS. What technology would you cut? What programs? What weapons systems or support?  Here again based on what? have you ever been in the Military? You can;t just throw out a number and say We could cut 50% and still maintain national security IT IS MEANINGLESS unless you have some expertise, experience whatever to rely on. Now coming from some former top General or Pentagon maven it might carry some weight  But from guys like me and You or Robert Higgs its just nonsense.

ANd PUH LEEZE don;t tell me your getting this from those authors you quoted WTF do they know? More importantly WHAT HAVE THEY EVER DONE?

The worst thing in the world is basing your opinion on some intellectual type who has never done anything other than write books and come up with various idealistic trains of thought.

So now we get to the last part about how anybody who knows anything about terrorism would laugh me out of the room. Seriously, who do you know PERSONALLY that knows jack shit about terrorism, ISIS or security threats to the USA? ANd again don't tell me about some fuck head who wrote a book or is running his mouth on You Tube. I FORGOT more about terrorism than you or some of those so called security experts who pop up from time to time ever learned or will ever learn.

What I told you about "furious Mind" went right over yours.... next time pay attention. if you did you'd understand that ISIS is not our worst threat, Iran is.  And if you think drawing your head and limbs into a non interventionist turtle shell is going to dissipate the threat of Islamofacist aggression there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have for  cheap.

[walkstall]

well thought out but still a failure, private police would not be any more efficient than "socialist" police.  We Do have private security firms....I ought to know as I've managed/owned a few of them and have spent time in related professions specifically private investigator, bodyguard and bail recovery agent. Coupled with 25 years in "socialist" State Law enforcement I think I know better than you how each functions and to what degree of efficiency.

One of the great problems in our society is the issue of Jurisdiction, criminals have no jurisdictional lines, no boundries. They use such to thwart "Socialist" Police as well as private security. Private security would be bound by the invisible wall mandated by the client (s) who hired them. Here we go again with Cattle Barons hiring Gunfighters to protect your cattle, not your neighbors twenty miles away on  t he next ranch.Hunting down criminals is expensive, I seriously doubt you'd want to pay the price tag to have your  stolen camera and wide screen TV recovered what it would cost Private security officers to run them down. ABandoning their post in favor of persuit. It was my experience in Private security that CLients were only willing to pay for bargain basement security, that means the lowest bidder, that means the least paid officers, that means the laziest, most inefficient and ineffective firms usually win the contract. Private security is riddled with incompetence for these reasons, your wishful thinking Libertarian idealism isn't going to change it either.

I'm not conceding anything regarding Military spending, I will point out that increasing technology grows more sophisticated, therefore more expensive.  Weapons systems and support will only increase in cost....some of that free market capitalism we ought to be so proud of.  You have no idea the impact a 40 OR even 50% cut would make in our Military EFFECTIVENESS. What technology would you cut? What programs? What weapons systems or support?  Here again based on what? have you ever been in the Military? You can;t just throw out a number and say We could cut 50% and still maintain national security IT IS MEANINGLESS unless you have some expertise, experience whatever to rely on. Now coming from some former top General or Pentagon maven it might carry some weight  But from guys like me and You or Robert Higgs its just nonsense.

ANd PUH LEEZE don;t tell me your getting this from those authors you quoted WTF do they know? More importantly WHAT HAVE THEY EVER DONE?

The worst thing in the world is basing your opinion on some intellectual type who has never done anything other than write books and come up with various idealistic trains of thought.

So now we get to the last part about how anybody who knows anything about terrorism would laugh me out of the room. Seriously, who do you know PERSONALLY that knows jack shit about terrorism, ISIS or security threats to the USA? ANd again don't tell me about some fuck head who wrote a book or is running his mouth on You Tube. I FORGOT more about terrorism than you or some of those so called security experts who pop up from time to time ever learned or will ever learn.

What I told you about "furious Mind" went right over yours.... next time pay attention. if you did you'd understand that ISIS is not our worst threat, Iran is.  And if you think drawing your head and limbs into a non interventionist turtle shell is going to dissipate the threat of Islamofacist aggression there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have for  cheap.

After all is said and done.  Someone will have to die to keep this fool alive.  He is damn sure not going to die for someone to have there freedom. Where will he get a "private police force" that will not end up turning on him, if someone will pays them more.   

[jrodefeld]

well thought out but still a failure, private police would not be any more efficient than "socialist" police.  We Do have private security firms....I ought to know as I've managed/owned a few of them and have spent time in related professions specifically private investigator, bodyguard and bail recovery agent. Coupled with 25 years in "socialist" State Law enforcement I think I know better than you how each functions and to what degree of efficiency.

One of the great problems in our society is the issue of Jurisdiction, criminals have no jurisdictional lines, no boundries. They use such to thwart "Socialist" Police as well as private security. Private security would be bound by the invisible wall mandated by the client (s) who hired them. Here we go again with Cattle Barons hiring Gunfighters to protect your cattle, not your neighbors twenty miles away on  t he next ranch.Hunting down criminals is expensive, I seriously doubt you'd want to pay the price tag to have your  stolen camera and wide screen TV recovered what it would cost Private security officers to run them down. ABandoning their post in favor of persuit. It was my experience in Private security that CLients were only willing to pay for bargain basement security, that means the lowest bidder, that means the least paid officers, that means the laziest, most inefficient and ineffective firms usually win the contract. Private security is riddled with incompetence for these reasons, your wishful thinking Libertarian idealism isn't going to change it either.

I'm not conceding anything regarding Military spending, I will point out that increasing technology grows more sophisticated, therefore more expensive.  Weapons systems and support will only increase in cost....some of that free market capitalism we ought to be so proud of.  You have no idea the impact a 40 OR even 50% cut would make in our Military EFFECTIVENESS. What technology would you cut? What programs? What weapons systems or support?  Here again based on what? have you ever been in the Military? You can;t just throw out a number and say We could cut 50% and still maintain national security IT IS MEANINGLESS unless you have some expertise, experience whatever to rely on. Now coming from some former top General or Pentagon maven it might carry some weight  But from guys like me and You or Robert Higgs its just nonsense.

ANd PUH LEEZE don;t tell me your getting this from those authors you quoted WTF do they know? More importantly WHAT HAVE THEY EVER DONE?

The worst thing in the world is basing your opinion on some intellectual type who has never done anything other than write books and come up with various idealistic trains of thought.

So now we get to the last part about how anybody who knows anything about terrorism would laugh me out of the room. Seriously, who do you know PERSONALLY that knows jack shit about terrorism, ISIS or security threats to the USA? ANd again don't tell me about some fuck head who wrote a book or is running his mouth on You Tube. I FORGOT more about terrorism than you or some of those so called security experts who pop up from time to time ever learned or will ever learn.

What I told you about "furious Mind" went right over yours.... next time pay attention. if you did you'd understand that ISIS is not our worst threat, Iran is.  And if you think drawing your head and limbs into a non interventionist turtle shell is going to dissipate the threat of Islamofacist aggression there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have for  cheap.

Iran?!!  Iran is our biggest threat?  As of 2013, Iran spends 17.7 Billion dollars annually on their military.  If we cut HALF of our national security spending per year, we'd STILL be spending more than 300 Billion dollars annually on our military.  You really think that "our greatest national security threat" would all of a sudden want to start a war with the United States if we only spent 282.3 Billion dollars more than them on our military each year?

I'm basing my opinion on the writings of economists, national security experts and ex-CIA authors and journalists who have done actual research on these subjects.  I mentioned it before, but Robert Pape and former CIA bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer know more about Islamic terrorism that almost anyone else and they support MY argument, not yours.

I find it rather funny that you'd trust the opinion of a Pentagon spokesperson or General, who has a vested interest in ever-expanding budgets and defense contracts for military contractors over independent journalists, economists and authors.  Many or most of the people I rely on have all the requisite military and CIA experience to have informed opinions on these issues without all of the conflicts of interest that current war propagandists have.

[jrodefeld]

After all is said and done.  Someone will have to die to keep this fool alive.  He is damn sure not going to die for someone to have there freedom. Where will he get a "private police force" that will not end up turning on him, if someone will pays them more.   

All right, so you favor small government, except in regards to the Pentagon and military spending, which is greater than the next seven or eight nations military budgets combined.

You believe in the Constitution and revere the Founders, except where they argue AGAINST entangling alliances and military empire. 

If you believe in a military and foreign policy that someone like Mark Levin would endorse, then you absolutely have to give up on the idea of EVER having a limited government.  Actual advocates for limited government have written for decades about how military conflicts and increasing defense spending lead to restricted liberties domestically and the growth of government.  In fact, governments grow the most during times of war.  Therefore, people who want to trample upon your liberty and centralize power will push propaganda that makes the population fearful.

Wartime conditions become perpetual and we must have an enemy to scare the public about.  During the Cold War, the enemy was the Soviet Union.  Conservatives like William F. Buckley convinced conservatives that they must "temporarily" abandon their small government views and focus on this existential threat.  They must support a massive military buildup and tolerate domestic welfare spending in the meantime.  Of course, after the Cold War ended, we never reclaimed those liberties that we gave up.  We had new enemies.  The new enemies that the National Security State identified were Islamic terrorists.  Saddam was the enemy, then Al Qaeda, then Iran, then ISIS and now we're told we must consider Russia the great danger once again.

It's okay if you come clean and abandon any support for limited government and the Constitution, but at least you owe it to yourself to be honest about it. 


By the way, if you really think Iran poses a grave national security threat to the United States even after the Nuclear deal, then you must have simply been exposed to a constant stream of propaganda from right-wing talk radio or other conservative outlets. 

If you want to know the truth about Iran and the propaganda war that Israel, the Neo-conservatives and the National Security State have been waging against them for twenty years, then you should read the book "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare" by Gareth Porter.  Porter is one of the best investigative journalists working today and he'll set you straight on the ACTUAL facts that pertain to Iran and the supposed threat we face from them.

[walkstall]

All right, so you favor small government, except in regards to the Pentagon and military spending, which is greater than the next seven or eight nations military budgets combined.

You believe in the Constitution and revere the Founders, except where they argue AGAINST entangling alliances and military empire. 

If you believe in a military and foreign policy that someone like Mark Levin would endorse, then you absolutely have to give up on the idea of EVER having a limited government.  Actual advocates for limited government have written for decades about how military conflicts and increasing defense spending lead to restricted liberties domestically and the growth of government.  In fact, governments grow the most during times of war.  Therefore, people who want to trample upon your liberty and centralize power will push propaganda that makes the population fearful.

Wartime conditions become perpetual and we must have an enemy to scare the public about.  During the Cold War, the enemy was the Soviet Union.  Conservatives like William F. Buckley convinced conservatives that they must "temporarily" abandon their small government views and focus on this existential threat.  They must support a massive military buildup and tolerate domestic welfare spending in the meantime.  Of course, after the Cold War ended, we never reclaimed those liberties that we gave up.  We had new enemies.  The new enemies that the National Security State identified were Islamic terrorists.  Saddam was the enemy, then Al Qaeda, then Iran, then ISIS and now we're told we must consider Russia the great danger once again.

It's okay if you come clean and abandon any support for limited government and the Constitution, but at least you owe it to yourself to be honest about it. 


By the way, if you really think Iran poses a grave national security threat to the United States even after the Nuclear deal, then you must have simply been exposed to a constant stream of propaganda from right-wing talk radio or other conservative outlets. 

If you want to know the truth about Iran and the propaganda war that Israel, the Neo-conservatives and the National Security State have been waging against them for twenty years, then you should read the book "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare" by Gareth Porter.  Porter is one of the best investigative journalists working today and he'll set you straight on the ACTUAL facts that pertain to Iran and the supposed threat we face from them.

I was talking "private police force".  That will Sale out to the highest bidder.   You keep fling poo and hope it will stick.   

[jrodefeld]

I was talking "private police force".  That will Sale out to the highest bidder.   You keep fling poo and hope it will stick.

I was actually more speaking to you all collectively with that comment rather than responding to your comment in particular.  Do you agree with me that the United States could easily cut more than 50% of its military spending and still be perfectly capable of defending against any national security threats?  Do you agree with me that you cannot support the sort of foreign policy that most of you seem to support while also believing in limited government and the Constitution?  Those are mutually exclusive positions.

Speaking of private police forces, they are only one way to provide security in a State-less society.  Communities could voluntarily provide a neighborhood watch program.  Non-police security agencies could sell you surveillance equipment and technology to deter crime.  A free society would likely be an armed society, so people will have access to legal firearms which is the last and best line of defense against crime.

As I'm sure you know, communities without gun control laws that have more law-abiding gun owners have far less crime since criminals don't know who is armed or unarmed.

I'm sure there will be volunteer security groups that come together to protect the neighborhood of poorer people.  There are so many potential avenues for effective crime deterrence if we don't place our trust in a State monopoly.

Do conservatives believe in the free market or don't they?  How can you argue for free market healthcare and criticize socialist healthcare one moment and the next criticize free market defense and police while endorsing socialist police?

Can you not see the contradiction in your thinking?

[Solar]

What your saying is incoherent.  On the one hand, you're praising the original Libertarian Platform and saying that libertarianism drifted left-ward over time.  But then you're also saying that the party was started by a bunch of hippie, counter-culture Leftists (who somehow also drafted a great platform). 

Only because you have no historical reference because you weren't born yet.

It is very wrong to claim that taking libertarianism in an anarchist direction is some new idea dreamed up by Leftist millennials.  Let me ask you an honest question.

Do you know who Murray Rothbard was? 
He was the most important libertarian intellectual of the second half of the 20th century.  He was the originator of modern libertarian anarchism.  He referred to it as "anarcho-capitalism".  He was instrumental in the founding of the Libertarian Party and the drafting of it's original platform, which you have praised.

To refresh my memory I searched and found an interesting bio. "a staunch advocate of historical revisionism", but beyond that, I remember the nut.

It is true that the Libertarian Party was not based explicitly on anarcho-capitalism, but people have recognized the important contribution of libertarian anarchist thought within the movement.

Murray Rothbard later became disillusioned with some elements of the "official" libertarian movement within Washington D.C.  In particular, he broke away from Reason magazine and the Cato Institute.  These "inside-the-beltway" libertarian think tanks wanted to boost the contributions of Frederick Hayek and downplay the importance of Ludwig von Mises, while Rothbard contend that Mises was by far the more important intellectual figure.  With Lew Rockwell, he formed the Mises Institute in the 1980s.  The Mises Institute was, and continues to be, much more radical and more principled than the "beltway" think tanks like The Cato Institute. 

And, interestingly, the Mises Institute has been far more welcoming to social conservatism and Christianity even while being more openly in favor of anarchism and radical libertarianism.  They are less "Left" than most other libertarian think tanks.

I've already conceded that Gary Johnson is "leftist" on gay marriage, on anti-discrimination laws, on certain environmental policies and a number of other issues.  But this does not indicate that the party has sharply moved to the left over time.  I'd say the party makes up largely the same percentage of disparate groups and factions that it always has.

It matters not how many differing factions make up a movement, what matters most is the majority squeaky wheel, which at current time are pissed off Libs.

Do you think Ron Paul, Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik are Leftists?  What about Mary Ruwart, who has been heavily involved in the Libertarian Party over the past couple decades?

Furthermore, I'd like to mention that libertarians of my age were far more likely to have been converted to libertarianism through Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, where he ran as a Republican.  If you claim Ron Paul is a Leftist, then you have no idea what Left and Right really mean.

None of which are running.

I like John Stossel, but he is supporting Gary Johnson. 

I've heard others say that as well, but I've yet to here Stossel himself say it.

What I'd really like to know is why you would feel more comfortable staying within the Republican Party than in the company of other libertarians?  You might say that libertarians, and in particular the Libertarian Party, have been entirely ineffective in instituting any real change, but the same could be said for so-called "Constitutional Conservatives" who, despite all evidence to the contrary, think that the Republican Party can be a vehicle to shrink government and get back to Constitutional principles.

I do not support the GOP, I advocate stealing the party from the leftists and making it a Conservative party, something it's never been.

[Possum]

I was actually more speaking to you all collectively with that comment rather than responding to your comment in particular.  Do you agree with me that the United States could easily cut more than 50% of its military spending and still be perfectly capable of defending against any national security threats?  Do you agree with me that you cannot support the sort of foreign policy that most of you seem to support while also believing in limited government and the Constitution?  Those are mutually exclusive positions.

Speaking of private police forces, they are only one way to provide security in a State-less society.  Communities could voluntarily provide a neighborhood watch program.  Non-police security agencies could sell you surveillance equipment and technology to deter crime.  A free society would likely be an armed society, so people will have access to legal firearms which is the last and best line of defense against crime.

As I'm sure you know, communities without gun control laws that have more law-abiding gun owners have far less crime since criminals don't know who is armed or unarmed.

I'm sure there will be volunteer security groups that come together to protect the neighborhood of poorer people.  There are so many potential avenues for effective crime deterrence if we don't place our trust in a State monopoly.

Do conservatives believe in the free market or don't they?  How can you argue for free market healthcare and criticize socialist healthcare one moment and the next criticize free market defense and police while endorsing socialist police?

Can you not see the contradiction in your thinking?

A "volunteer" police force??? Maybe we could call them vigilantes?

[walkstall]

A "volunteer" police force??? Maybe we could call them vigilantes?

That what they call the Red Cross and United Good Neighbors.  You volunteer your time and money.  We will take a very large cut for a very large salary before helping someone.  You pay us first then we my help someone. 

[Solar]

A "volunteer" police force??? Maybe we could call them vigilantes?

Africa calls them "War Lords". That's the problem with these idealistic kids, they have no concept of human nature.

[Possum]

Africa calls them "War Lords". That's the problem with these idealistic kids, they have no concept of human nature.

I can not imagine what it would be like with a volunteer police force roaming the streets. What would the difference be between them and gangs? Well, I was going to look into the libertarian party but think I'll let it pass...... Looking forward to the midterms.

[Solar]

I can not imagine what it would be like with a volunteer police force roaming the streets. What would the difference be between them and gangs? Well, I was going to look into the libertarian party but think I'll let it pass...... Looking forward to the midterms.

Remember 8th grade 'Hall Monitors'? That's the best way to describe it. Idealistic, with the belief they are judge, jury and hangman.
They are completely clueless to the differences between Police and Sheriffs, and the power they wield.