Tag Archives: Libertarian

What OWS Wants Should Terrify You

Occupy Wall Street can’t seem to get it’s message unified, even among themselves, but I think that in the minds of many of the more disillusioned participants is a vague vision. One that was put to paper first in 1961 in the pages of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. This vision should terrify you.

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

These words begin Harrison Bergeron , a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. The concept so bizarre and inconceivable, that it was published first as a work of fantasy. The idea that government can form an agency whose entire raison d’être is to make every citizen equal, and devise enforcement for such a policy, is the ultimate in crimes against the individual and the death of private innovation and motivation. It is evil empowered – the literal smothering of Ego and will by government sanctioned force.

Yet, isn’t that what the 99% want? Aren’t they vaguely ( or not so, in some cases) suggesting that the government step in and take down the 1%? Aren’t they pining, not to excel and propel themselves out of disparity and helplessness, but to have someone else drag down those who do not share in their misery and lack of motivation? Aren’t they suggesting that their entire base of failure is because of a small number of people who do not define their existence and motivation by socially accepted definitions of limits on success and prosperity? Maybe it isn’t even that deep.. maybe it is pure denial of responsibility and cohesive blame at the nexus of their lashing out without a defined path to resolution. Regardless of the “why”, the “how” that they are driving towards isn’t just the end of the individual and of American Exceptionalism, but also the entire basis of the Great Experiment. It is the end of America as it was intended.

Read Harrison Bergeron in its ten page entirety here and then, for a fantastically terrifying and inspiring adaptation see the trailer for 2081 below ( and then go buy it. YAY, Capitalism!)


** Quick update: I was made aware that the Handicapper General in 2081 is none other than Tammy Bruce! How awesome is THAT? Follow her on twitter here!

Libertarianism Today

Voltaire Portrait

Voltaire at 24

With the formation of the Tea Party, the emergence of Rep. Ron Paul in 3rd place in a number of presidential polls, and the prominence of such think tanks as Reason and Cato, libertarianism has been in the public eye recently. However, the philosophy was neglected for years; and its concepts still are unclear to many. Libertarianism isn’t a new thing, in fact it is quite old in origin. Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson were two of libertarianism’s influential fore-bearers, or as it they were called at the time, liberals (obviously the meaning of liberalism has changed since then). Another 18th Century classical liberal writer/philosopher Voltaire famously wrote, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” This is a thought provoking quote that could possibly offend some religious people, but libertarians have never been afraid of being called offensive. Voltaire became widely renown for his brilliance, wit, and snark; many traits that describe his modern intellectual counterparts.

Libertarian Definition JPG

Yes, libertarians often say things that are thought provoking and offensive to the core beliefs of many. Possibly more annoying, they usually speak with great confidence, even arrogance at times, about their convictions and are able to soundly defend their arguments from emotionally driven attacks. Some have complained that libertarians talk down to people in debates/discussions, and I’ve even had to stop myself while doing it. I do agree that many libertarian intellectuals act like the right’s counter to the limousine liberal elites; and with that in mind, it could be pointed out that such an attitude could easily be a turn off to some voters.

While I agree that the concern should be noted, there are reasons for this. Libertarians don’t try to win a popularity contest, nor would they ever consider voting for a “less of the evils” candidate based on electability If it was an option, libertarians would happily nominate a constitutional robot who was incapable of delivering presidential addresses or emotionally appealing to the population of the nation; who instead would spend his time repealing a hundred years worth of unconstitutional legislation. They understand that they spend their time “fighting the good fight”, stated differently, that a 3rd party doesn’t stand a chance in America so they fight a futile battle trying their best to impact the national debate and standing for what they believe in.

Libertarians have to explain the same things over and over again and this becomes tiresome. They don’t always know what their audience knows and doesn’t know, which can cause problems when explaining issues. They won’t waste time trying to appeal to people with platitudes and generalities, but instead, they will discuss in depth policy proposals and historical evidence. Libertarians in this regard are among the most well informed of people from any ideology. Libertarians can easily become disgruntled, having for years been taken advantage of by the republican party. Libertarians are often grouped in with the “conservative coalition”, yet they are perhaps the only group that never gets a bone thrown to them.

Libertarians are the Rodney Dangerfields of the republican party, they never get any respect. When Michele Bachmann was in Charleston for Congressman Tim Scott’s “First in the South” presidential candidates forum last month she described how a united republican/conservative coalition would put a filibuster proof majority in the senate. The coalition she described was: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, national security conservatives, and libertarians. Maybe she has a point, maybe if we found candidates that fit those four descriptions, the republican party and the country would be in better shape. The problem? Social conservatives and so-called national security conservatives can easily clash with libertarians. The typical republican solution? Keep playing to the social conservative and “national security” conservatives and the libertarians will have to vote for us because they’ll have nowhere else to go.

As Jonah Goldberg wrote, “As you know, I consider Libertarians to be like Celtic barbarians deployed by British kings in the Middle Ages against the Scots or the French. They are extremely useful for fighting your enemies, but you would never want one to actually sit on the throne.” I like Jonah Goldberg, I think he is smart and witty, but I find his analogy to be both humorous as well as sad because I know there are a number of others who feel the same way. Obviously the problem with his comparison is that, unlike barbarians, the libertarian goal isn’t to rape and pillage, but instead to encourage the people to keep all of their stuff and live as they please (so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else). As Neal Boortz joked, “Have you heard about the vast libertarian conspiracy? They want to take over the government and then leave you the hell alone.”

Not since the early 1960s was there a time when it was possible for the government to spend less than the year before. Not that I think we had too little government in the 60s, but at least since then, libertarians have been an enslaved bunch. President after president, regardless of party, has stuck it to them. The past 11 years has been particularly hard on libertarians, as republican President Bush doubled the size of government, only to have democrat President Obama to double it again. The results have yielded less freedom and less economic prosperity.

Leaving SignWith the formation and growth of the tea party movement, libertarians see a glimpse of hope for the first time in likely their entire lives. The tea party runs candidates in the republican party who regularly fight the rest of the republican party. My hope, and the hope of other libertarians, is that the republican party with at the very least throw us a few bones every once in a while. Otherwise part of the politically active base that is relied upon for electoral support, despite not having anything to show for it, may one day return the neglect.


Purely libertarian .. in Space

This post at Spaceflight Now about the possibility of the IIS space station going unmanned in November sparked this side commentary on The Other McCain delving into the deterioration of America’s commitment to win the science and technology race, and the federal task of providing for the national security.

The offshoot post by Chris Smith ( aka Smitty , aka @smitty_one_each ) is a short and sweet case for why the current state of the space program is a failure of Progressive politics and he may well be right on that point. What I found noteworthy ( and note, I did here), was the introduction of a supposition about “purely libertarian” opinion on the validity of the space program.

Smitty was kind enough to make a small change in his post after our exchange on twitter, but I did ask him if he would mind an answer of sorts to his query on libertarian views.

I have no idea if his use of the small “l” in libertarian was intentional, which begs the question about the term “purely libertarian”, but I will just assume he literally meant libertarian ( not Libertarian) and go from there. I re-read the post several times, and was really confounded at a reason for bringing in libertarians at all. Why not moderates or independents? The comments below the post answered my question. Most GOP variety conservatives don’t have any idea what the answer would be. They certainly don’t know WHY the libertarian answer is what it is. Most can’t see past the “provide for the national defense” any more than the Left can see past the “provide for the general welfare”. (please send hate mail directly to me and save my editor a lot of heartache, please.)

You see, a purely libertarian viewpoint on the space program would be relatively straightforward: Turn the space program into a REAL race for the top and let it be funded by private businesses. Let the funds come from investors and the jobs go to the massive range of employees possessing the hugely encompassing range of skills needed to launch a viable ( and profitable) program of exploration into space. National security? Well, currently the federal government has managed to launch a forty year long , ghastly expensive serious of failures to produce. Now, there is no doubt that space exploration is a worthy expenditure. I will even concede that there are likely legitimate national defense concerns with our ability to position ourselves as the forerunner in space exploration and technology development. Which begs just one last question from me: Since when is the federal government the leader in ANY race to efficient, productive, and profitable expansion of anything, except itself?

Please follow Smitty on twitter. Despite my response to this particular statement, I have found him to be insightful, dedicated, and an excellent source of information and wit!

What is Bilderberg Group?

In the height of all the controversy, and with blame at a heightened state in Washington, many of the candidates running in the 2012 election are gearing up for opposition. Texas Governor, Rick Perry, has not announced yet if he will run. As all the new candidates are under scrutiny by the media there has been some speculation that Perry is part of a secret group of elitists by the name of Bilderberg. The group may be part of a select few whose goals are to develop an international agenda.

The group was established in 1954, the Bilderberg Group holds annual meetings, which are by invitation only for the most wealthy and powerful people. Roughly one-third of those who attend are Americans and the rest are European. The group took the name Bilderberg after their first meeting which was held in Oosterbeek, Netherlands at the Hotel de Bilderberg.  There are those who believe the group is made up of an elite group of people whose strategic goal is a new world order. They meet to discuss, and influence, the changing global, political, economic and social landscape. Bilderberg -Planning on a New World Order. What appears to be the official website of Bilderberg is rather vague, but to the point. If it is in fact the groups web-site cannot be confirmed, however information on the site states:

What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is

  • the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy;
  • the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated;
  • the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely.Bilderberg Meetings | The official website.

Governor Perry gets endorsement for Presidential election from Bilderberg according to Paul Joseph Watson of InfoWars.com. In an article he states, “While spewing Tea Party-style rhetoric about  secession, shooting coyotes and courting the favor of Christian evangelicals,  behind closed doors Perry has been quietly selling out Texas to globalist  interests, auctioning off  highways to foreign companies to turn them into profit-driven toll  roads.”

“Speculation that Perry is the Bilderberg group’s  ace card was prompted by the current political climate, which can largely be  gleaned from the fact that Perry is a longtime, unwavering supporter of the  NAFTA Superhighway and related infrastructure projects,” wrote  AFP’s Jim Tucker earlier this month. “These pave the way for the  Bilderberg-supported North American Union (NAU) proposal that would merge the  U.S., Canada and Mexico.” via » Bilderberg-Approved Perry Set to Become Presidential Frontrunner Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!  Although he is clearly violating the Logan Act, Governor Perry still attends the 2007 Bilderberg conference. viaBusted! Kathleen Sebelius admitts that she and Rick Perry are Bilderberg Group attendees! – Orange County: Campaign For Liberty. The Logan Act is a US federal law which prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and amended in 1994, violation of the law is a felony, punishable with up to three years in prison.

Executive Director Wes Benedict of the Libertarian Party expressed his voice regarding Mr. Perry. He said about Governor Perry, “You supported Lance Armstrong’s 3 billion dollar Texas taxpayer funded medical research center. That’s like Obama-Care. you secured a 300 million dollar business handout slush fund for you and just the two leaders of the legislature to dole out to whomever you felt like being friendly to.” He also went on to accuse Perry of a state business tax, setting up state toll booths on the TX highways, and signing an executive order which forces Texas schoolgirls to get the HPV vaccine – whether they, or their parents, want it or not. via Rick Perry slammed by Libertarian Director: video | Libertarian Party

Governor Perry has stated he will announce his plan to run for President this Saturday. Is it a good idea or not? You decide, and while you’re at it, you may want to look into all the candidates for yourself. Remember, the campaign trail has an historical record for producing a lot of rhetoric and very little action once they are in office.

Special thanks to those of you who provided information for this article.

Dear Ann Coulter : How Are Book Sales?

Following the New Hampshire GOP debate, Ann Coulter wrote the following in a Townhall article in response to an answer by Ron Paul that the government should not be involved in marriage:

“Most libertarians are cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time. So they dodge the tough questions when it suits their purposes by pretending to be Randian purists, but are perfectly comfortable issuing politically expedient answers when it comes to the taxpayers’ obligations under Medicare and Social Security.”

Coulter elaborates a little with Bill O’Reilly:

I am going to start by giving her props for remembering to use the word “most” in her statement so that she could cover her you know what, when she gets publicly called out for being a hypocritical, book pushing sensationalist.. which I am about to do.

Since Ann conveniently forgets to mention the rest of the answer given in the debate, let me fill you in. Ron Paul suggests that marriage should be an issue addressed by State governments, and by the Church. Ann equates all Libertarians with Objectivists (that was the word you were looking for, Ann. Your audience is smart enough to figure out how to Google if they don’t know it), and calls them cowering frauds when it comes to taking a stand on social issues.

I, personally, have a thing for supporting the Tenth Amendment in this country. I also have a thing for the rest of the Constitution. Call me a cowering fraud, but I spend an awful lot of time reminding liberals that they have no right to tell me how to live my life, or how to spend my money. That fact doesn’t change because I don’t like someone else’s decisions. We [Conservatives] have managed to come together from across the entire spectrum of fiscal to social conservatism, to recognize that the Constitution entitles us to make those decisions for ourselves, without the consent of some faceless government entity’s stamp of approval.

Coulter would agree, except where she wouldn’t. According to her, the States and Church are incapable of handling marriage all on their own. They would make terrible decisions that went against Coulter’s definition of morality and that would allow private handling of things like adoption, insurance, inheritance! How can we survive as a country if such things were allowed? She suggests that Libertarians would put an end to “official” marriage. I don’t know about you, but last time I checked, a marriage license was a revenue generating piece of pain in the butt, and marriage was sanctioned by love and God. (By the way, a decidedly Un-Objectivist point of view)

Imagine, allowing marriage to be taken out of the hands of the federal government, completely ignored by the federal lawmakers of this country, and completely handled as an institution of the Church. Why, that would be…. Demonic!

John Stossel’s Evolution to Liberty

Stossel demonstrates how he started his career with a jaded view of capitalism and business, but came to realize that the government didn’t actually make things better. John makes the point that the government’s regulatory interventions come in after things were already getting better. This might be a great video to share if you know someone that preaches the “evil capitalist” line, but has nothing to back it up. Thanks to @Galtsgirl who shared this on twitter.

The 5-19 Show: Money for Nothing

Show Time: Thursday May 19th, 7pm pacific, 8pm Mountain, 9pm Central, 10pm Eastern

Tune In: Plain, Hard Truth Internet Radio

Call in: Be part of the program – call in to the show: (424) 220-1807

Guests: Nicole Pearce and Andrew Starosky from Truth About Bills.

Show Topics: Join Michelle and Rich as they discuss the IMF, if internet currencies can survive and Obama’s sudden new fascination with Oil

Recording of the Show:

Listen to internet radio with Rich Mitchell on Blog Talk Radio

Links from the Show:

CEPR Warns of Dangers of IMF Resurgence

Hear recordings of past shows: CDN On-Air Archives

Political Cartoon - A.F. Branco - Drillin' for Votes

Libertarian Steve Collett Launches TV Ad Campaign in CA’s 36th Congressional District Election

VENICE, Calif., May 16, 2011 — Libertarian congressional candidate Steve Collett has been airing a series of TV commercials for the Tuesday, May 17 election. Collett says he offers “win/win solutions where we actually get more by spending less.”

In the first ad Steve says, “We have 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners and we spend 43% of total world defense dollars. It’s tough to spread democracy and freedom with a gun.” The ads are running on CNN, MSNBC, The History Channel, Bravo and The Animal Planet.

In the second ad Steve is pictured with his two Great Pyrenees dogs and says, “Our war on drugs is the most costly and failed policy in U.S. history. By treating drugs as a medical rather than criminal issue, we can stop the killings in Mexico without firing a single shot.” He continues, “I believe in the right of each person to choose who they can marry and what they can do with their own body. We need to revoke the Patriot Act.”

Steve is running in an election which includes several prominent Democrats in a usually Democratic district, including teacher Marcy Winograd, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn and newcomer Dan Adler. Collett is spreading a civil libertarian message which advocates marijuana decriminalization for adults, which he says discriminates against minorities and the less affluent who are disproportionately victimized by arrests, prosecution and imprisonment. Collett says, “I can out-Democrat the Democrats on civil rights. At the same time, I’m a fiscal conservative.”

Collett adds, “We are pouring our tax dollars down the drain on a military and prison industrial complex that knows no boundaries. We spend $700 billion a year on defense, which is more than the next eleven largest defense budgets put together. Republican proposals to slash Medicare and add another $100 billion to defense are a disgrace.” Prominent Republicans in the race include Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin, Hermosa Beach City Councilman Kit Bobko and social conservative Craig Huey.

Collett, 56, is a Certified Public Accountant who owns his own firm in Venice and has lived in Hermosa Beach for 24 years. He projects spending approximately $50,000 on his campaign and is the only non-major party candidate who has raised enough money to require a Federal Election Commission finance report.

“We need to stop subsidizing big oil companies and others who are making record profits while paying no taxes. We need to stop cuts to education to pay for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on drugs. We need to stop forcing the middle class to pay for intrusive government activities. We need to stop trying to pay for the mess on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children and the poor.”

Collett says his “win/win solutions can save tens of thousands of lives, reduce income taxes for a hundred million U.S. taxpayers and make a billion lives a little bit better.”

Mr. Collett is running for U.S. Congress in California’s 36th District on May 17th, 2011.

If you would like more information, or to arrange an interview with Mr. Collett, please call (424) 672-0088 or email [email protected]


Steve Collett for Congress
1728 Abbot Kinney Blvd.
Venice, Calif. 90291
phone: (310) 477-2226
email: [email protected]
cell: (909) 641-7675

Maybe Mitch

It is beginning to look more and more like Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana will be throwing his hat into the ring for the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination. While an announcement is still likely a few weeks away, he is already getting probable endorsements from some pretty prominent GOPers, like this nod from Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is no media darling. He seems to be equally a target for both the left and right these days, and that may work to his advantage even more than his conserable record for toeing the fiscal line. Watching the press on Governor Daniels for the last few weeks has been much like watching a ping pong game. His twitter mentions are much the same. Why the back and forth? Simple, because he, much like Rep. Paul Ryan, is a man with a plan.

By now, most have heard that Daniels has called for what amounts to a moratorium on addressing social issues. While this stance has angered many hardline Republicans, it can really be our only stragey for curing the most pressing ailment of this country: our out of control spending and massive public debt. Pundits on the left and right have both pointed to the deficit increase during Daniel’s tenure as U.S. Director of the Office of Management and Budget (2001-03), but outside of his already thrilled supporters, few have mentioned his long list of achievement inline with the most Conservative agenda in decades.

Despite his mellow demeanor and apparent lack of charisma, Daniels has managed to take Indiana from being a state deeply in debt to one with a consistently balanced budget. He also has recently signed hard line immigration legislation, will soon sign legislation banning tax dollar use for abortions, and has taken the lead in this country on education reform . If you are looking for the anti-Obama, with a shot of wooing the center right AND the center left ( which means an actual change to make Big O a Big Zero) , then Mitch is an obvious choice.

If you haven’t been following, his fans aren’t just politicians and certain Twisters tweeters. Governor Daniels has been urged to run by quite a few student groups. Students for Daniels has been actively supporting him since January. In February, Yale students ran a media spot urging the Governor to run. If the future of our country seem to think he can give Obama a run for his money, isn’t he worth checking out?



Update: On May 22, Mitch Daniels announced he would not run for President in 2012.

See the profiles of other potential 2012 GOP Candidates

What to Expect from the First GOP Presidential Debate

Thursday night at 9pm, Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party will co-sponsor the first debate of the 2012 Presidential election. Five presidential possibles will be present for the debate: Herman Cain, former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza; Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico; Ron Paul, U.S. representative from Texas; Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota, and Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania.

What’s also important to note is that the candidates polling at the top of the most recent polls, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin will not be in attendance.

For those that chose to show, two main themes will more-than-likely be omnipresent: pot shots at President Obama and attempts for each of the candidates to differentiate themselves from each other.

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul will likely stress their libertarian roots by attacking the Fed’s monetary policy, shrinking the size of government and stressing the need for the U.S. to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Johnson’s laser-like focus on the legalization of marijuana may place him firmly in the fringe camp especially since he’s been largely out of the limelight since leaving the New Mexico Governorship in 2002.

Tim Pawlenty will likely stress his executive experience as the Governor of Minnesota and crafting the image that he is the only realistic candidate in the race against Obama. In the past, Pawlenty has struggled to create an image of himself that excites the Conservative base. The debate could prove a pivot-point for him in becoming the most-serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Herman Cain has a tough push in the debate. While an effective communicator, he has some unclear positions on more liberal-leaning policies such as affirmative action and government intervention in the workplace. If those issues come to light, he will be hard pressed to either distance himself from prior stances on these issues or avoiding answering them altogether. Either one may not play well with the GOP base.

Rick Santorum will likely do well in the debate if it focuses on foreign policy, a strong point for the former Pennsylvania senator. A key concern is Santorum’s electability. While he will likely be fiery and exciting in the debate format, his loss of his recent Senate seat may cause many to question if he can beat Barack Obama in the general election.

Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Bid Tuesday

Ron Paul for PresidentAccording to an article in the National Journal, Ron Paul will be announcing his run for President on Tuesday.

Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaign’s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.

As was mentioned in “Like Him or Not, Ron Paul is Relevant“, Mr. Paul had won a GOP straw poll in April beating both Trump and Romney – the two current front-runners in the GOP field.

Ron Paul is the most visible and well-known figure of the libertarian party, with his son Rand in a close second. Ron’s heavily anti-fed, anti-big government message fell on deaf ears in his 1988 run for President, but with an almost $15 trillion dollar deficit, questionable monetary policy by the fed and an over-reaching federal government, he is becoming a much more representative figure of those just right-of-center.

Mr. Paul will be the oldest candidate to enter the Presidential race at 75, but is not struggling among young voters as a post on Texas on the Potomac mentioned:

The poll by the Pew Research Center shows Paul’s support strongest among Tea Party loyalists (13 percent), independent Republicans (13 percent), young voters (12 percent) and those who attend church less than once a week (11 percent).

The country is energized in an anti-federalist mood and Ron Paul has a message to match. It remains to be seen if he can convert his message into votes for the GOP nomination.

Like Him or Not, Ron Paul is Relevant

At age 75, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is the oldest of a crowd of potential Republican presidential challengers, if only by a few years. If elected in 2012, he would be the oldest president in U.S. history; the record-holder, Reagan, assumed office at age 69. The uninformed reader might jump to the incorrect conclusion that Paul, who is old enough to be President Obama’s father, is hopelessly out of touch with the young voters who turned out in 2008 and ignorantly propelled a dangerous radical into the highest office of the land, but as anyone who pays attention to political chatter knows, Paul is wildly popular with the under-thirty crowd.

Paul won a GOP presidential straw poll on April 16 in South Carolina, easily beating Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, who tied for second place. Paul has been winning such polls left and right since the libertarian-rooted Tea Party became a political force in 2009, but his popularity among Republicans continues to be underemphasized by mainstream media outlets, which frequently (and probably intentionally) identify him as a libertarian rather than a Republican.

According to the talking heads, Romney, Huckabee, Palin, and Gingrich are the Republicans worth paying attention to as the 2012 election cycle approaches. Hesitant to take Trump’s candidacy seriously, they laughingly praise his ability to generate publicity, and might or might not remember to mention Paul, Bachmann, Pawlenty, and a handful of others. The fixation on Romney and Huckabee is somewhat understandable, as they hold impressive leads in most of the polls, but might prove to be unjustified as the race heats up.

Paul leads the others in fundraising, having raised about $3 million in the last quarter, with Bachmann following close behind. Romney trails at third, proving that it takes more than an eerie resemblance to Bill Pullman (who played the president in the 1996 sci-fi film Independence Day) to impress donors.

Paul’s financial support, by the way, comes from grass-roots activists—not corporations or wealthy CEOs looking for favors.

With several recent trips to Iowa and New Hampshire under his belt, a new book coming out—entitled Liberty Defined—and plans to participate in the first nationally televised GOP presidential debate on May 5, Paul is making it clear that he is a serious candidate and has no intention of being an irrelevant also-ran. His 2008 campaign, though unsuccessful, laid the foundation for the Tea Party movement that sprang up only months after candidates McCain and Romney dismissed his predictions of a coming financial collapse (which proved to be entirely correct).

Of course, Paul has yet to officially declare his candidacy—but he will. Too old to consider a run in 2016 or beyond, Paul’s only reasons for staying out of the 2012 Republican primary would be: 1) To enable his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), to run, or 2) To prepare for an independent campaign, as recently suggested by Jesse Ventura. Either scenario would probably end in disappointment for Paul’s supporters.

That dedicated group of conservative libertarians, though passionate, is anything but naïve. They understand that Paul’s chances of winning the Republican nomination are slim, and don’t care, choosing instead to believe that the principles of liberty—which emerge unscathed from the most heated debates—can save the United States from a bleak future of centralization and socialism, and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.

Regardless of the outcome of Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, the revolution will continue to grow. That is reason enough for America’s Congressman to embark upon what detractors might view as a hopeless quest.

*update – Ron Paul announced his formation of a Presidential Exploratory Committee on April 26th, 2011


to see more candidate profiles, visit our 2012 Election Page

Big L, little l : L(i)bertarian Decoded

Big L, little lI hang out on Twitter a lot. I am stating the obvious, as that is how many of you came to read this, but for those who aren’t addicts (yet), Twitter has become one of the best places for Conservatives to meet and converse with other Conservatives. I have met, online and in person, some people who have become political allies, some amazing people who I know will be lifelong friends, and some who have enlightened me in many ways. Twitter has, overall, been an incredibly positive experience for me.

As I dove headfirst into the political realm of Twitter, I was also exposed to the different ideas and practices of “Conservative”. Interestingly, we all seem to get along in a social situations fairly well, despite our different applications of the word.  As speculation and conversation about a potential 2012 field of Conservative Presidential candidates becomes more and more the focus of my Twitter followers and following, I have noticed something new happening: We conservatives are fracturing the recently formed coalition right down an easily seen set of lines. RINO, NEOCON, Libertarian, Classic Liberal … all generally to the right on at least fiscal issues, are dividing in the face of choosing a stance in regards to the current GOP held Congress and what to look for in a 2012 nominee.

This concerns me because we need to rekindle and grow that unified front we had during the 2010 Congressional elections even more in the next nineteen months. We need to figure out what our greatest achievement can be in the scheme of the problems our Nation faces together, and unite behind that goal. We need to not add dynamite to the fissures between us.

I consider myself relatively informed on the current state of fiscal issues and many social issues. I am a realist in practice and an idealist in goals. That contradiction has placed me somewhere between Big L and little l. Oh , didn’t I mention that I am a L(l)ibertarian? Yep. Without question, without a doubt. I am a Ll. What, exactly, does that mean?

Libertarian Party

I am a registered member of the Libertarian Party , which sort of fits me into the Big L group. Big L Libertarians believe in a limited governmental role and is specifically laid out in the Libertarian Party Platform. So, on the surface, I agree with the entire platform. I agree that government has its place, and that place is very well laid out already. I don’t think the Platform is idealistic anymore than the Constitution is idealistic. With me so far?

On to the little “l”s. libertarians believe in the same program as Libertarians. There aren’t any great disagreements about the Rights of Man. The difference lies in the view of the Libertarian Party by libertarians. That’s right, they see the Party as often ineffective and just another part of the System ( completely unintentional Matrix reference)  that hands a government entity too much control. libertarians would privatize everything, and the only real role of the “government” would be contract enforcement, and it would be handled by private companies in contract with the citizens they represent.

So, how am I personally an L(l)ibertarian? I support an extremely limited government in cases of national security, a lack of involvement in personal decisions, and the end of income and property taxation. I support the Libertarian Party platform, and I am a registered Libertarian. I do not, however believe that the current incarnation of governance is the way to guarantee the Rights laid out in our Constitution. I firmly believe in a true free market system of trade and that the rule of majority is just an excuse for placing power into too few hands. I believe that individuals are, or can be with a little less to rely on, perfectly capable of making decisions about how to live their own lives and that the vast majority will actually try to make choices that don’t intentionally infringe upon the common sense rights that were laid out by the framers of this, the GREATEST nation on earth.

.. maybe I am a little more idealistic  than I should be … is that really a dividing characteristic to my fellow Conservatives?

“I am. I think. I will.” ~ Ayn Rand – Anthem



« Older Entries Recent Entries »