LJ Libertarians' Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
LJ Libertarians' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Saturday, July 19th, 2008 | 7:42 pm
[arkadelos]
 |
video games
Which sounds more liberal and which sounds more conservative?
Restricting M-rated video games because they increase obesity - sedentary lifestyle.
Restrictive M-rated video games because they either make people violent or glorify violence.
I think the first one is more liberal and the second one more conservative. Liberals are more about issues about a person's physical well-being while the conservatives are more interested in issues dealing with morality. | 10:51 am
[writerspleasure] |
Cuba reforms turn to state land Cuba is to put more state-controlled farm land into private hands, in a move to increase the island's lagging food production. Private farmers who do well will be able to increase their holdings by up to 99 acres (40 hectares) for a 10-year period that can be renewed. Until now, private farmers have only been able to run small areas of land. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7514519.stm[ lightly x-posted ] | | Friday, July 18th, 2008 | 11:43 am
[zzzing]
 |
Fear on the American Interstate http://www.ridelust.com/fear-on-the-american-interstate-or-the-autobahn-is-my-homeland/"You know it and I know it, everyone goes over 65, the police need only to wade out into the pool of innocents and pluck 2 or 3 out a week and shake them down for cash; it’s so ingrained into our national conciousness that we don’t seem to think that’s odd. But honestly, think about it; what value does a law have if no one obeys it? It just makes a mockery of the country where the law exists. I’d be laughing right now if it weren’t for the jackbooted marauders prowling the highways at this very moment looking for poor innocent working men to harass and extort." | 10:20 am
[existentme]
 |
Seize the Children! I'm sure someone here can correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is wrong: Winnipeg 'white pride' mother regrets redrawing swastika on child's armAbsent evidence of physical harm, or psychological harm (let's face it, a sizable fraction of all "beliefs" might be considered as arguably psychologically harmful) of the kind that inevitably results in sociopathy, I do not believe the State ought be seizing the childrens. It's a cliche, yes, but at which point does one draw the line. Right? Some Christians probably believe homosexuals and even non-believers are at least as deplorable as POC, or that they themselves are least in a similar stead, as to superiority, as does White Pride Mom. Some Islamic people probably believe in the destruction of infidels and Jews and others. Etc, you get the drift. Yah, sure, send the kid home from school with instruction not to return with her mom's heart on her sleeve, as it were, but seize the children? ( Read more... ) | | Thursday, July 17th, 2008 | 5:03 pm
[typewriterking]
 |
Idle Polling Question
So, we have the Barr-Root ticket for the LP. This is considered a right-wing ticket. To conventional wisdom, this makes the ticket a "spoiler" against John McCain. It should follow that Obama's camp wants Barr publicized in order to siphon from the right. Barr needs 15% in popularly-recognized national polls to get into the debates, and raise his profile with voters.
So why aren't we convincing lefties that it's in their own best strategic interest to select Barr in national polls? Heck, maybe even convince them it's in their interest to throw a few dollars Barr's way. One would achieve big returns at no cost (except temporarily sinking Obama in the polls for a while), and a couple dollars for Barr would yield bigger returns for them than saturating their guy even more.
It sounds to me like a good sell. | 2:22 pm
[jrcorn]
 |
Redpath's Playboy Interview - May 2008 I typed this up, per an earlier request. I also included his letter to the editor from July 2008. ( Interview behind cut ) | 12:24 pm
[lucy_chronicles]
 |
Destroying the 'Judges Myth' of voting for McCain CNET Article======== Declan McCullagh from CNET has a write up from Bob's talk at the FreedomFest in Las Vegas last weekend where he focused on the invasion of privacy by the Federal government. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9993135-38.htmlDeclan might be a small 'l' libertarian as his one-sentence description of himself states he is "an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says: 'We oughta have a new federal law against this.'" Coverage in CNET will raise Bob's profile, especially amongst the tech crowd in California. WSJ Op-ED ======== Bob has an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, not an easy thing I might add, about how McCain will not pick judges who will uphold the Constitution, noting in particular McCain-Feingold, an egregious whack at the 1st Amendment and how the Supreme Court upheld that piece of legislation. WSJ Op-Ed by Bob Bob points out to a large audience how McCain's belief in a "unitary executive" (See Unitary Executive Theory) is his true guiding principle and how McCain will appoint judges to the bench that will uphold that belief. | 8:59 am
[cambler]
 |
Taking the Fifth?
Okay, let me preface this by saying that this is likely a stupid idea - I'm just pondering it and can't immediately think of a reason this wouldn't be an option. Likely an obvious reason ;)
When a census examiner comes to your home, why can't you simply assert your rights under the fifth amendment to the Constitution?
Granted, you have nothing that would, indeed, be incriminating, but there's no way to know that. And if you're asked, "What is incriminating such that you can't answer the census questions?" your answer could still be an assertion of those rights.
Theoretically, if you'd lied on a previous census, truthful answers now might reveal that and subject you to $500 per question fines - so actually, there is a plausible incriminating answer to each and every question.
Again, I can't help but think that this is taking it a bit far - but I wonder. Thoughts? | | Wednesday, July 16th, 2008 | 9:19 pm
[ragnarok20]
 |
Playboy
Okay, for some reason this is ridiculously hard to find, but I am trying to acquire a copy of the interview that Bill Redpath did with Playboy a few months back. There's a great quote in it about conflating "justice" and "good" which I can't quite remember. I loaned the article in question to a professor just before school got out for summer.
I just can't seem to find it online at all, so if any of you access to it that'd be awesome.
No questions asked, I swear :-p | 8:22 pm
[lucy_chronicles]
 |
Our expanding booth from Freedom Fest Very successful booth which grew into the 'cool lounge area' and duh, we were one of the only one's to have food. nothing has changed since college. have area to lounge + food = multiple people. and we didn't have to innundate them too much... apple juice anyone w/ that bob barr sticker? ;-)  day 1 booth   bob moves too fast to be photographed but he also enjoyed the Candy table...   food and friendly faces bring people...  our expanded booth  stuff!  and it did help that we were right by the coffee area... ;-)  full expansion of da' booth... now for multimedia at the conservative leadership conf this fall! | 12:47 pm
[ericthemage]
 |
England to allow self defense? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/2303004/Have-a-go-heroes-get-legal-right-to-defend-themselves.htmlFor example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them.
However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them.
The new laws follow a growing public campaign for people to be given the right to defend themselves and their own homes in the wake of a number of high profile cases. It says shoot...have gun laws relaxed in England to where citizens can own them? | | Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 | 8:17 pm
[slaveria] |
I went to a libertarian rally in DC about a week ago. In the time that I was there (which wasn't long as it was incredibly hot), I heard a lot about how the government was overstepping its boundaries, spending too much money as well as hearing other complaints about the government. The statement that really struck out to me was that one speaker advised the crowd to drink plenty of water by purchasing water and to drink the water at the PUBLIC fountains. I could be wrong but this seems to exemplify what I see in a lot of libertarians. Many libertarians seem to be very eager and very happy to complain about the government but they don't hesitate in reaping the benefits provided by the government. I realize that libertarians do pay their taxes so they should be able to have government benefits but it seems to me that the movement for more libertarianism in this country would be greatly strengthened if people started refusing government benefits. Thoughts? | 4:31 pm
[propopdan]
 |
people that can't take care of themselves
when I talk to people who aren't libertarian (and to be perfectly honest with myself, I'm probably no longer a libertarian either :-\), the one thing they have trouble with, and that I have the most trouble explaining, is what would happen to individuals that can't take care of themselves? Who is responsible for them?
For example: a five year old who is abused by her parents; a 20-something with Down Syndrome; someone who through some freak accident lost both his legs and now his insurance company refuses to cover him. | 2:50 pm
[zzzing]
|
National Defense in an Anarcho-capitalistic Society I've always considered the national defense/nuclear weapons problem the weakest point of anarcho-capitalism. Not weak enough for me to quit being an ancap, but weak enough for me to think about it often. Today I found an interesting essay about it online http://www.etext.org/Politics/Extropy.Institute/josh.090192from the essay: "(David) Friedman's Law states that "it costs the government twice as much as it should to do anything." A common rule of thumb in military matters is that it takes an attacking force of three times the strength of the defensive one to dislodge it. If we follow these dicta to their logical conclusion, we can reasonably suppose that a State wishing to attack an anarchistic society must invest six times as much as the anarchy is investing in defense. Jeffrey Hummel, in a widely distributed taped talk on the subject, adds the belief that a truly free market will give the anarchy a large advantage in overall wealth and technological progress vis-a-vis a State sufficiently authoritarian to start an unprovoked war of conquest. He therefore concludes that the anarchy would be "invincible"." read the rest hereread it all, theres an interesting argument that the lowering cost of nukes is a benefit to an ancap society. | 2:35 pm
[gentlemaitresse]
 |
| | Monday, July 14th, 2008 | 11:44 pm
[fandantium]
 |
DOD Antivirus
There are many who say that a large number of the various viruses and other malware computer users suffer from day to day are the creations of foreign governments in an attempt to undermine the American (and European) financial structure. Nations like China are believed to have a military branch dedicated to computer / economic warfare, which produces and proliferates malicious software to the ultimate end of attacking the stability of the US economy. If this is true, How many here believe that a legitimate function of the federal government to “provide of the common defense” could be construed to include using taxpayer dollars to build the best antivirus software billions of dollars can develop? Would anybody have any specific concerns or objections? | | Sunday, July 13th, 2008 | 12:22 am
[zzzing]
|
The Pickens Plan http://www.ridelust.com/the-pickens-plan-or-the-road-to-serfdom/"This is about the time in the show where T Boone starts talking about “strong leadership” and the need for everyone to “march in the right direction” to get all this done. That’s the part that really bothers me. It’s eerily similar to F.A. Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’." Here's an interesting article about the Pickens Plan from a libertarian point of view. | | Saturday, July 12th, 2008 | 9:29 am
[lucy_chronicles]
|
Making strides; Freedomfest to TIME Magazine
The booth at Freedom Fest has morphed into a family living room complete w/ couches and candy. Pictures forthcoming but here's one of the big articles which will appear in TIME magazine this week.
Please forgive the lack of cuts as i can't access it this morning... more from Viguerie later. We ARE going to be in the debates folks! 6% Zogby poll nationwide, not much more from ticked off people to make the 10% necessary for Google/YouTube. ;-)
--------------------
TIME magazine
The (Not So) Lunatic Fringe
Thursday, Jul. 10, 2008
By NATHAN THORNBURGH
ENLARGE PHOTO
Bob Barr is hoping to draw votes from the left and the right.
VERONIKA LUKASOVA / THE NEW YORK TIMES / REDUX
It's tempting to think of Libertarianism as nothing more than old-school Republicanism, but it's always been partially left-wing, drawing from a long history of American anarchism. The modern challenge is to unite those two wings--or, as magician (and stalwart Libertarian) Penn Jillette told me, "Convince the dope guys that the gun guys are O.K., and vice versa." And many Libertarians believe the time is now. It helps that the U.S. has been throttled for a century by two parties whose core differences are narrowing. The current general election has seemed at times a contest about who can crib off the other party's platform more, from McCain's enthusiasm for using government to fight global warming to Obama's hedging on warrantless wiretapping. For an electorate having a harder time distinguishing Coke from Pepsi, there's a thirst for something--anything--new.
The Standard Bearer
"Everybody is Libertarian about something in this country," Bob Barr told me over breakfast in midtown Manhattan recently. It's his best pitch, an oft-used explanation of why the Libertarian Party can leverage the country's many discontents. The strongest part of his message is the delivery. Barr is a level man with a rich, assuring voice. Even in a D.C.-standard-issue dark three-piece suit, there's something warm and tweedy about him--a perfectly calm spokesman for the often cantankerous ideas of his party.
His candidacy, though, is not without risks. The Libertarian Party is looking to introduce itself as an alternative to the major parties, but it has done so by poaching politicians who, like Barr, were very recently Republicans. And Barr wasn't just any Republican. He was a premier culture warrior in Congress, leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton and fighting medical marijuana, gay marriage, even the right of soldiers to practice Wicca--all of which are anathema to the out-of-our-bedrooms libertarian ideal. In fact, one of the biggest political victories of the modern Libertarian Party was to unseat Barr in 2002; it poured money into an anti-Barr campaign, ran attack ads and called him the "worst drug warrior in Congress." Another strike against Barr: he's a former CIA official and a former federal prosecutor. "To Libertarians," one of his opponents told me, "that's like being a child molester."
Barr now alternates between expressing contrition for his past and highlighting his post-9/11 record of fighting against federal rollbacks of civil liberties. He works with both the ACLU and the NRA and quotes Ayn Rand fluently. His platform these days is a soft libertarian diet of lower taxes, more privacy and school choice.
Barr's moderation may keep him from tapping into Ron Paul's base, which rallied around its candidate for one of the most uncompromising campaigns in recent memory. In an interview in his congressional office, Paul told me there's a reason he had so much success, particularly with younger voters. "They're idealistic. They like consistency. They like principle," he said. For a sense of his hard-line heart, consider the fact that his signal issue was the gold standard--returning to the peg the dollar used before 1971 as a bulwark against inflation and federal mismanagement. That would mean scrapping the Federal Reserve, for starters. While Barr talks about shrinking the size of government, Paul wants to tear the entire global financial system limb from limb.
Paul, who ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988, won't be telling his supporters whom to vote for. (Despite his attacks on McCain, Paul decided to stay in the Republican Party rather than mount a third-party run.) He has said, however, that they're free to go Libertarian or head for the Constitution Party. "Others," he said, "might be disgusted and go away." Hardly a ringing endorsement of the former Republicans leading his former party.
How much will Paul's coolness toward Barr hurt the Libertarians? The party ticket is directed by Ross Perot's old campaign manager and is already polling a respectable 6% nationwide in the latest Zogby poll--exactly the same percentage that separates McCain and Obama. Not all of Barr's voters would be McCain voters, of course, but Barr did best with conservatives (7%) and independents (11%).
In the end, that may not be enough to make a difference in 2008. But Barr's running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, says the party can ride a wave of new followers into the next election cycle. Just three years ago, after all, he wrote a book called Millionaire Republican: Why Rich Republicans Get Rich--and How You Can Too! If he can convert, he says, anyone can.
I visited Root at his suburban Las Vegas home back in May. He is certainly well off, having built a sports-handicapping business that he says led him to politics. (The Founding Fathers "loved gambling," he says.) But politics isn't his only passion. Before we could begin talking about the Libertarian Party, he started selling me on his lifestyle. He takes 100 vitamin supplements every day. He and his kids never drink cow's milk, just rice milk and spring water. "I meditate, exercise, pray and do yoga every day," he says. "If I had a staff of 20, they couldn't do the work I do."
All that bluster makes him seem more like a telemarketer or talk-show host than a politician, and he tells me he'd at least like to get a nationally syndicated radio show out of this presidential campaign. It would be a mistake, though, to write Root off. The things he cares about--being able to gamble legally via his home computer, continuing to homeschool his kids without much interference, keeping taxes low--speak to a lot of Americans. If the old party was cobbled together from hard-line strains of voluntarianism, propertarianism and paleolibertarianism, the new Libertarian Party is more likely to build off Root's take, which is essentially suburbanarianism.
And if that happens, voters alienated by our calcified party system may find in the Libertarians a party that's a lot like Glen Parshall--armed to the teeth but with a gentle logic and a contagious enthusiasm for freedom in all its forms. Libertarians are getting ready for the mainstream, and mainstream America may finally be ready for them. | 7:24 am
[jdhenchman]
 |
Barr/Root videos The 2008 Libertarian ticket is Bob Barr of Georgia for President and Wayne Root of Nevada for Vice-President. The ticket is expected to be on the ballot in at least 48 states, and the most recent Zogby poll has Barr at 6 percent nationwide. Last night, I attended a Barr/Root fundraiser at Wayne Root's house just outside Las Vegas. These videos came out of it: Video 1 (1:13) Libertarian Vice-Presidential Nominee Wayne Root introduces Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr. Root points out that Nevada's growth is in part due to having no personal or corporate income taxes.
Video 2 (8:39) Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr and Vice Presidential Nominee Wayne Root outline their vision for America - reducing government spending and taxes, returning decision-making to individuals, and offering Americans the choice of a problem-solving team that can work with elected officials.
Video 3 (2:43) Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr and Vice-Presidential Nominee Wayne Root are asked whether getting into the 2008 Election Debates is a priority.
Video 4 (1:05) Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr and Vice-Presidential Nominee Wayne Root are asked who they think the Republican and Democratic Vice Presidential nominees will be.
Video 5 (1:11) Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr and Vice-Presidential Nominee Wayne Root are asked how they will end the War in Iraq.
Video 6 (3:39) Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr and Vice-Presidential Nominee Wayne Root are asked how they would tackle the energy crisis. Their response includes ending ethanol subsidies that contribute to global hunger and removing barriers to expanding current and developing new sources of energy.Video 7 (1:44) Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr and Vice-Presidential Nominee Wayne Root are asked what their first priorities would be if they were elected.
Video 8 (1:11) Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr and Vice-Presidential Nominee Wayne Root are asked how they would tackle the national debt, spending, and taxes. They emphasize first cutting the size of the federal government and its spending, then tackling tax reform, because tax reform without spending cuts would not reduce many tax burdens.
(x-posted) | | Friday, July 11th, 2008 | 2:03 am
[chris_acheson]
 |
Leashing Politicians via Contracts? About a week ago, I was discussing with someone in this community the possibility of using contracts to hold political candidates to certain voting requirements, should they get into office. Donations to their campaigns would be tied to these contracts, such that if they are breached, the politician must pay back everyone who donated. It looks like someone is planning to put this concept into action: If a candidate gets into office, how will their votes in Congress be decided?
Each candidate we choose to endorse will sign a contract with us vowing only to vote in Congress as do their constituents on the site, that is, as do the majority of votes from constituents when enough votes have been cast. Now, I don't think this project is really all that great of an idea. However, I do find the precedent of using contracts in this fashion to be inspiring. I'd like to suggest, to those of you who have an interest in electoral politics, that you create a "Filibuster Party" using this tactic. After all, the best way to protect liberty through the political process is to deadlock the legislatures. |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
libertarianism