ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, November 19, 2012

The Government's Other Party

Jim Geraghty laments the growing libertarian distaste for the Republican Party:
Considering how there was little dispute that another four years of Obama would mean another four years of government growing bigger and taking a more active role in citizens’ lives, and how no one really thought Johnson would win, it would appear that the 1.22 million Libertarian voters were content to “send a message” with their votes… a message that will now be almost entirely ignored in Washington.

It’s their right; every vote has to be earned, and surely a Romney presidency would have offered its own disappointments to the Libertarian worldview. But it may be a continuing liability for the GOP that roughly one percent of the electorate believes strongly in limited government, but votes in a way that does not empower the GOP to do anything to limit that government.
Even more problematic was the larger number of libertarians like me and Karl Denninger, who didn't even vote for Johnson because we knew that while he was the nominated Libertarian candidate, he was no libertarian.  After eight years of unmitigated government growth under George Bush, several of them with the Republicans holding the White House, House, and Senate, many libertarians are completely done with the Republican Party.  We simply will not support the party of not-quite-so-big government.

The fact of the matter is that it makes no sense for any advocate of small government to vote to empower the GOP to do anything to limit government because the Government's Other Party has absolutely no intention of doing so.

Labels:

55 Comments:

Blogger JohnG November 19, 2012 10:11 AM  

I note that all the RINOs are out in full force urging further moderation of the GOP. Crystal - tax the rich! Gingrich - Amnesty! and the host of others saying dump morality and principles!

Depressing. I would look forward to a breakup, but I don't think that is a character trait for the most part (and the porn, booze/pot, and football are pretty good).

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 19, 2012 10:12 AM  

People in favor of so-called "limited government" or "small government" need to be a lot more precise about what it is that they really mean. The fact is that we have a country of 300+ million people living in a space the size of a feckin continent; simple grown-up responsibility indicates that a certain amount of government is going to be necessary to keep a lid on that.

Which is not to say, that I am in favor of "big government." I just want these small-govt people to begin articulating what exactly it is that they mean, so I can evaluate it. Hey, I listened to "2112" and played air-guitar along with it back when I was a surly teenager, and to be honest, that was about all the Ayn Rand I thought I needed. I want to know what the actual program is for you guys. I mean, I've got my own program all spelled out and ready to roll, but I sort of doubt that anybody is going to make me dictator any time soon.

So what exactly do the limited government people propose to do?


Anonymous kaflick November 19, 2012 10:14 AM  

I did vote for Johnson, not because I thought he was much better but because I couldn't think of a better way to tell the Republicans I will not vote for someone like their last few candidates.

Anonymous DrTorch November 19, 2012 10:32 AM  

I agree w/ kaflick. I think it was a mistake for people who didn't vote, not to vote for Johnson or Goode. It was pretty clear they weren't going to win, but if they had enough votes to demonstrate that their support could have given a GOP candidate a win, that might have convinced the unprincipled tacticians in the party to push more liberty-minded candidates/proposals.

It's a longshot, but at least the math could have been repeatedly used to make a convincing argument.

Anonymous zen0 November 19, 2012 10:33 AM  

So what exactly do the limited government people propose to do? --- scoobius dubious


I know how much you like to yap, but would it kill you to just look something up? Here is a link, but I am not going to dress it up for you. You'll have to go to the trouble of actual copy and paste technique. I know its a bother, but I'm busy.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1106&Itemid=69





The central tenet of Paul's political philosophy is that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."

Anonymous Joe November 19, 2012 10:34 AM  

The problem is the word "libertarian"...

Ask 10 people and 9 will say "economically conservative, socially liberal..."

Hmmm, which political party claims to be "economically conservative, socially liberal..."

Answer: The Democratic Party.

Yes, total BS. But that's what people think. Remember, bail-outs, entitlements, etc. are not RADICAL ... these are "safe tried-and-true economic solutions"... Barry isn't a socialist, he's just doing what FDR did, etc.

Anonymous Roundtine November 19, 2012 10:35 AM  

So what exactly do the limited government people propose to do?

The government of the 1920s or before is acceptable. The government still meddled then, but their reach was limited by their resources. Government should be fed a small diet of tax dollars, enough to keep it strong and competent in things it must do, but leave only limited resources for mucking around.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 19, 2012 10:37 AM  

How about actually having some rule of law and limiting government within the bounds of that obscure law we call the Constitution? That would be a good start

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments November 19, 2012 10:39 AM  

Cosmo-tarian progressives who make their living working for the government, or for "libertarian think tanks", or as members of a cartel legally protected by the eeeevil state such as lawyers and professors, or by pontificating endlessly in liberal publications, or as cynical rent-seeking businesspeople are content to "send a message" with their vote even though it makes life worse for the rest of us... sounds about right.

Anonymous JartStar November 19, 2012 10:42 AM  

It will be interesting to see which way the GOP goes. The Democrats are proudly stating that they need to become more like them, and the Libertarians are starting to leave.

The problem is the one of government largesse and how the majority of the American people view it. Romney was correct to call it “gifts”, but the public no longer see it as gifts but rather that the government can have an active and helpful role in shaping people’s lives. This cultural shift puts the GOP at a severe disadvantage as they will forever be playing catch up to the Democrats when it comes to entitlements.

Considering that voter turnout is 57.5% it means that ~1.75 million voting age people identify with the Libertarian party (assuming that 57.5% of Libertarians turned out) or ~0.6% of the total US population. This confirms my suspicions that the percent of the population who disagrees with the size of government is hopelessly small at this time. It’s easy for the ilk to assume that many people agree with their stance on smaller government since so many here are vocal about it, but outside of this small room the super majority of people like government programs.

Anonymous TLM November 19, 2012 10:44 AM  

2008 McCain
2012 Romney
With those "winners" in the books, I'm confident the GOp will run Lindsy Graham in 2016. Woohoo!

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick November 19, 2012 10:47 AM  

but outside of this small room the super majority of people like government programs.

Agreed. Too bad when they run out of money though.

Anonymous VD November 19, 2012 10:47 AM  

This confirms my suspicions that the percent of the population who disagrees with the size of government is hopelessly small at this time. It’s easy for the ilk to assume that many people agree with their stance on smaller government since so many here are vocal about it, but outside of this small room the super majority of people like government programs.

Only now? I've been stating this openly since I started the blog back in 2001. The Corpse column I cited after the election dates back to 2004.

Blogger James Higham November 19, 2012 10:50 AM  

Karl was getting a bit apoplectic there. Good to see.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan November 19, 2012 10:51 AM  

Libertarians have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot by running nerdy candidates with closets full of skeletons, guaranteeing not only failure, but embarrassment.

Plus, they habitually bring a penknife to a sword fight and get skewered, sliced and diced, and then ground under the heel of the GOP, who see them as the biggest threat.

Other than that, they do fine.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick November 19, 2012 10:54 AM  

I think the smart thing to do right now is to get the free money from the gov't you qualify for without getting dependent on it, avoiding all the taxes your legally can, and wait it out.

Anonymous Porky? November 19, 2012 10:56 AM  

Both the GOP and the DNC are founded on the same obviously fallacious principle - that power is a corrupting influence only when it is in the hands of the other guys.

Anonymous JartStar November 19, 2012 11:21 AM  

Only now? I've been stating this openly since I started the blog back in 2001. The Corpse column I cited after the election dates back to 2004.

Late to the party and I never had bothered to look at the actual numbers until this election.


I think the smart thing to do right now is to get the free money from the gov't you qualify for without getting dependent on it, avoiding all the taxes your legally can, and wait it out.

I agree. The rational thing to to is to feast upon the beast until it is consumed and save for the future rainy day.

Anonymous brassnlead November 19, 2012 11:25 AM  

"I agree. The rational thing to to is to feast upon the beast until it is consumed and save for the future rainy day. "

Should one save those sweet US dollars, or something with intrinsic value?

Anonymous oregon mouse November 19, 2012 11:28 AM  

"But it may be a continuing liability for the GOP that roughly one percent of the electorate believes strongly in limited government, but votes in a way that does not empower the GOP to do anything to limit that government."
having just sat through a particularly excruciating Republican party meeting last saturday I can't even express how completely out of touch the establishment party members are with their own base. One of our newly elected republican county commissioners whined from the podium that she thought some republicans "even voted for Obama because he made them feel good". The room was half full of libertarians and she knew full well who those libertarians voted for. The est. repubs believe they are absolutely entitled to votes from the repub and libertarian base by virtue of being the lesser evil. They just cannot understand that they have lost all credibility as champions of small gov. and that their base is calling them on their hypocracy. They can't understand that pushing endless war is big government even if they they manage to phase out welfare programs (they won't ever). Their use of the christian faith for the aggrandizement of the party and the state is also more than a little disgusting for those christians who aren't republican kool-aid drinkers.
I should mention their idea of youth outreach. They had a young man in a sweater vest, with such wonderfully correct posture I thought he had smuggled a ramrod into the meeting. He was a dead ringer for a young Santorum and a future candidate for a republican gay sex scandal (my favorite kind). He claimed he was an excellent pointman for their youth outreach on college campuses because he could be cool with the kids.

Anonymous JartStar November 19, 2012 11:29 AM  

The GOP voters are now dependent upon government nearly as much as Democrat voters. Many are on SS and Medicare and come 2014 I know of several which will take part in Obamacare with heavy government supplement. These are people whose pastors preach Republican Jesus and despise the Democratic Party. It’s no wonder the Democrat elite mock these people incessantly as they snap at the very hand that literally feeds them.

Anonymous JP (real one) November 19, 2012 11:33 AM  

"I note that all the RINOs are out in full force urging further moderation of the GOP. Crystal - tax the rich! Gingrich - Amnesty! and the host of others saying dump morality and principles!"

Note that they'll dump or compromise almost anything...except the neo-con "police the world" agenda. No, no. It's all about national security (I can just imagine Palin harping on about it right now). Don't touch defense spending or our beloved troops overseas. (We love them so much that we don't mind them being constant targets of urban guerrila warfare.)

All the talk about the GOP not getting young voters and needing to re-shape its image...yet no one brings up how Ron Paul did exactly those things.

Blogger Logos November 19, 2012 11:33 AM  

You can give the masses their big-government fix by letting them have it at the State level, which is where the Constitution places it anyway. The natural competition among States will wash out bad policies by virtue of the fact that people vote with their feet; there is no need to persuade them with ideological or philosophical arguments, which never work on most people anyway.

Our problem is the unconstitutional, bloated national government because it short-circuits the competitive mechanism. There being little or no external pressure to restrain the constant growth of this government, the takers steal ever more from the makers, who are captive.

Limited government is never ideologically attractive to most people because it requires a level of self-control, personal responsibility, and maturity they simply lack. The solution thus is to yoke people's penchant for big government and allow it to compete via multiple sovereignties. In other words, be a "polyarchist" rather than a "minarchist." Polyarchy eventually produces minarchy by the sheer force of people's personal interests. Minarchy is the goal, but it cannot be packaged and sold directly to the masses as such.

Our path to salvation (if any) is to preach that States excercise MORE power of their choosing, even if anti-libertarian in nature, and defy the federal government on issues important to each State's citizens. The federal government is gasping for air anyway; all its outrageous excesses reek of desperation, so the States need to start asserting themselves more rather than less (regardless of whether it produces outright secession).

Anonymous Roundtine November 19, 2012 11:35 AM  

A majority of libertarians are either libertines or aspies. The aspies come out with insane policy ideas that they enjoy debating. For example, there's no shortage of open borders libertarians.

I was a member of the college libertarians—it's like herding cats. They will never attain more than 1 or 2% support, they will never organize, they will never achieve anything of political significance other than have their good ideas picked up by the other parties.

Anonymous Joe November 19, 2012 11:50 AM  

Democrats are the party of "Socially liberal, economic conservative" ... the proof:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/krugman-the-twinkie-manifesto.html

Anonymous DrTorch November 19, 2012 11:53 AM  

they will never achieve anything of political significance other than have their good ideas picked up by the other parties.

Unfortunately, it seems like entropy comes into play here, and they have their bad ideas piced up by other parties.

I do agree with you greatly. Libertarians are so focused on the individual, they fail to see the advantages gained by cooperation and community. So any other group can pick them off, one-at-a-time. Even disparate groups can gang up and eliminate them.

Added to that, every lunatic who is rejected by society tries to find a home among libertarians. It is a bit of a Sisiphyean labor to fight for individual liberty.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan November 19, 2012 12:15 PM  

An analogy would be the little boy Charlie who bit his brother's finger, climbing into the octagon to face Georges St. Pierre.

There would be a few fans in the crowd who would say "I'm rooting little Charlie - he has a puncher's chance".

Those are libertarians.

And then St. Pierre would tie little Charlie in a knot, knock his tooth out, and punt him out over the Atlantic.

Libertarians are naive to the nth power. N being infinity.

Blogger Shimshon November 19, 2012 12:37 PM  

Considering how there was little dispute that another four years of Obama would mean another four years of government growing bigger and taking a more active role in citizens’ lives...

Seriously? Seriously?! He doesn't really believe that a Romney victory would not lead to "another four years of government growing bigger and taking a more active role in citizens’ lives". He's not that stupid, naive, or gullible. Or maybe he really is.

Anonymous willneverpostagain November 19, 2012 12:38 PM  

"Democrats are the party of "Socially liberal, economic conservative" ... the proof:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/krugman-the-twinkie-manifesto.html"

Joe, dude, that picture of Krudman on Drudge says it all about that metro fag.

Anonymous LI November 19, 2012 12:41 PM  

The answer is federalism. I would love to see all current federal taxes replaced with, say, a 5% tax on state tax revenue (similar to the Articles of Confederation). This would incentivize states to keep the federal government in check.

Anonymous bw November 19, 2012 1:02 PM  

...in a way that does not empower the GOP to do anything

First of all, that is an hilarious statement. The US government only has specific, enumerated powers - ones which the Republican party has violated the entire lifetime of everyone that this clown is preaching at.
Secondly, he is lying. The power has been there with (R.) presidents, senates, and houses. The slide has been consistenly one way - and that is exactly because of those who label themselves conservatives and vote Republican - they are not, and have never been - and never will be. The re-making of the country will take a conversion of fascist socialists - everyone who has ever pulled a lever for the bi-factional ruling party, the Corporate Banking Oligarchy. The Cryptocracy.
Speaking in and believing in and knowing the truth in a time of lying and deception is a revelutionary thing.
What did this esteemed blog host say some time ago? You can't stop the signal bitch! (The Truth will always ring true to those willing and able to hear it).

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein November 19, 2012 1:03 PM  

Roundtine :
I was a member of the college libertarians—it's like herding cats. They will never attain more than 1 or 2% support, they will never organize, they will never achieve anything of political significance other than have their good ideas picked up by the other parties.


Yet, the founders of the US tilted strongly libertarian. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are very libertarian documents.
Not disagreeing with you. More along the lines of wondering where we went wrong ...

Anonymous bw November 19, 2012 1:05 PM  

Was caught betwixt.
It's actually a reveal-utionary thing.

Anonymous dh November 19, 2012 1:24 PM  

> GOP to do anything to limit government because the Government's Other Party has absolutely no
> intention of doing so.

In fairness, they never really promised to do so. All they promised what to balance the budget at some point like 10-12 years from now, assuming growth that was never going to happen and cuts that were never going to be made.

Anonymous asdf November 19, 2012 1:44 PM  

"A majority of libertarians are either libertines or aspies."

Bingo

"Cosmo-tarian progressives who make their living working for the government, or for "libertarian think tanks", or as members of a cartel legally protected by the eeeevil state such as lawyers and professors, or by pontificating endlessly in liberal publications, or as cynical rent-seeking businesspeople are content to "send a message" with their vote even though it makes life worse for the rest of us... sounds about right."

Bingo again.

Libertarians are nerdy aspie white dudes who are liberals in every meaningful way but don't like paying taxes. Their only major legislative or cultural accomplishment has been as apologists for corporatists and cultural leftists. They should be viewed as the paid propogandists they are, selling their high IQ for cushy six figure jobs writing propoganda for the powers that be.

Anonymous duckman November 19, 2012 2:00 PM  

Republicans: Junior branch of the U.S. single party system.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 19, 2012 2:14 PM  

Not disagreeing with you. More along the lines of wondering where we went wrong ...

By expanding the voting franchise.

Only about 30% of adult men in the US are genetically capable of accepting responsibility for themselves. It's only 15-20% in the rest of the world (a consequence of self-selection among the early immigrants who had enough risk-taking in their genes to start over from scratch in a wilderness). Among women it's probably single digits, though they probably carry the genes in the same proportion as the men in their genetic cohort.

People who lack the hypomania gene are simply too unconfortable being 100% responsible for themselves, with no one else to rely upon if things go wrong. They want a protector, a provider of last resort, a safety net beneath them. If that net isn't there, they suffer debilitating psychological problems. I have come to believe it is honestly cruel to make these people live libertarian existences. It's like making a dog live on his own with no other pack members.

The problem of course is that if these people are allowed a say in society, they screw it up. Though they lack the emotional strength to be entrepreneurs, to take risks in pursuit of rewards, they still have plenty of envy. Give them a voice and they vote to appropriate all the gains of the entrepreneur class for themselves.

I believe the only effective solution is to limit voting rights to men who have demonstrated some ability. Then, those men have to understand that the others are not going to bootstrap themselves up and will need psychological safety nets. Probalby the original mistake of conservatives in the US was not understanding this, or thinking everyone was like them, or at least wanted to be like them.

It's not perfect, there will always be those who should be allowed to vote but aren't, and vice versa. But our current situation is simply - as the Greenies like to say - unsustainable. We're strip-mining the entrepreneur classes and destroying the econimic ecology.

Of course, since that solution is not perfect, we'll never do it, since any imperfection in something conservative is grounds for ignoring it...

Anonymous JP (real one) November 19, 2012 2:22 PM  

Yes, we just need to elect a Romney, McCain or Dole type. That will start us on the right track. Then finally we'll meet our savior--another Reagan. He'll cut taxes once again but conveniently forget about spending cuts. In fact, we'll spend even more on "defense" as we deploy troops all over the world. There we go again.

I agree that big "L" Libertarians have little chance right now, but what do people think the alternative is? The GOP in its current state is hopeless. Even if another Ron Paul type becomes a candidate, there's no way the neo-cons will allow them to win the primary.

And what's with Torch, Little Ryan and asdf? Is everyone in need of testosterone replacement therapy these days?

Anonymous Orion November 19, 2012 3:06 PM  

Anyone recall the Whigs? The Democratic-Republicans? Parties have come and gone in our system. It usually happens when all they stand for is being in power, like the Whigs. Reminds me a lot of the Republicans these days, pragmatists to the core.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein November 19, 2012 4:48 PM  

asdf: "Bingo."

"Bingo again."



How do you make a little old lady say [the f word]?

Blogger CR106 November 19, 2012 4:50 PM  

Am I one of the few who voted for Goode?

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 19, 2012 5:31 PM  

"I know how much you like to yap,"

Compiling.

Actually I'm kidding, but not by much. My work has natural irregular breaks in it, I have to pass the time somehow, and I despise the MSM. Blogging is more fun. Why do you blog, in order to sit in silence with your hands folded in your lap? Yapping is the essence of the game, buckaroo. Get thee to a Christian Science Reading Room.

"but would it kill you to just look something up?"

I come to places like this for the conversation, not to be a research assistant. I can pay a college kid to go look something up and report back to me. I want to hear what YOU, personally, have got to say about stuff.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 19, 2012 5:42 PM  

"I know its a bother, but I'm busy."

Well don't blog when you're busy. Problem solved.

Blogger James Dixon November 19, 2012 9:11 PM  

> I did vote for Johnson, not because I thought he was much better...

Actually, he was better. Far better. Which tells you exactly how bad the choices were.

> ...but outside of this small room the super majority of people like government programs.

Well, duh.

> With those "winners" in the books, I'm confident the GOp will run Lindsy Graham in 2016. Woohoo!

I think Politico had it right and it'll be Jeb Bush.

> Should one save those sweet US dollars, or something with intrinsic value?

If that's not a rhetorical question, you haven't been paying attention.

> Am I one of the few who voted for Goode?

He wasn't on the ballot in all states. :(

Anonymous Toby Temple November 20, 2012 4:04 AM  

scoobius dubious,

What small government people want is the complete opposite of the current US government.

That should be a good clue for you.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 20, 2012 5:10 AM  

"That should be a good clue for you."

If I wanted a clue then I'd ask Colonel Mustard what he thought about Professor Plum's opinion of what Miss Scarlet was doing in the library with a candlestick.

I didn't ask for a clue, I asked for details, and elaborated thoughts on the subject.

Didn't get 'em. That's fine, y'all don't owe me anything. But imagine what that does for my opinion of this congress of august philosophers.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 20, 2012 7:05 AM  

This is what you said early on:

People in favor of so-called "limited government" or "small government" need to be a lot more precise about what it is that they really mean.

Opposite of the current US government is a clue that offers a lot of answers.

From that clue alone you can get the following precise information:

- No spending on military activity outside of US
- No income tax
- No federal intervention on state laws
- No government intervention on personal habits
- No government intervention on family matters
- No government-sponsored invasion of privacy
- No socialistic programs
- No government intervention on the economy
- No government violation of the Bill of Rights

I think the list is much longer.

The result is a much smaller government than what America have today.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 20, 2012 7:39 AM  

@Toby Temple -- well OK now we're getting somewhere, and kudos to you for elaborating a couple of specific opening moves. I like your specifics a lot better than I like the mystical fulminating about "small government" (for an empire physically larger than China), whatever the hell that turns out to be. Out of curiosity, you ever read any John Muir? Can you make the conceptual leap to why I asked that?

Here is my next question, though... in a practical physical political (and corrupt) world, in order to implement your ideas, you would however first need to "come down", like the addicts say, from the present morbid state of affairs. For instance, you propose "no income tax" and "no socialistic programs". I wouldn't say I disagree, but in the present reality we have a huge amount of the population wrapped up tightly in such things; to end them overnight would cause so much trauma it would cost vastly more to clean up the resulting mess than what you propose to gain. How would you ease it down? Or do you think that creating that sort of wreckage would be useful destruction, and then we just sweep up the debris and begin afresh? (I'm not being snarky there, it is the legitimate m.o. of revolutionists and has been for a long time, it's a thing to consider seriously, and althouth I incline towards distate for it, it is not to be dismissed out of hand.)

Anonymous DrTorch November 20, 2012 8:44 AM  

And what's with Torch, Little Ryan and asdf? Is everyone in need of testosterone replacement therapy these days?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. That I suggested libertarians are often disorganized and uncooperative? That's an observable fact. Doesn't mean I've given up and accepted straight ticket GOP (see my first post in this thread).

Anonymous DonReynolds November 20, 2012 10:32 AM  

As an economist, I have often been called a Libertarians, but I have never considered myself to be one nor have I ever voted for the Libertarian party. I have always thought it strange that someone who believes that there is no positive role for the government, no need for nation states, and nothing good that the government can do.....to run for public office and become part of the government in this country. It is kinda like the churchlady trying to get hired at the local whorehouse, thinking she could convert a few sinners while she fucks for money. (I do not doubt she would be extremely popular.)

Since Libertarians do not believe in government and do not believe in nation states, they must believe that are at someone else's birthday party by mistake when they are surrounded by patriots and conservatives, as when they participate in the Republican party. The party itself is pretty nationalistic, some would even say militaristic, which would seem to give Libertarians a case of loose stools after a few hours.

Of course, my main complaint about Libertarians is not that they believe in free enterprise capitalism. My main complaint is that they have no problem with this country being invaded by tens of millions of foreigners, who like locusts eat out our sustenance and strip the land bare of vegetation. Libertarians say we should divert our gaze and not think about how this upsets the balance of power in this country or influences our elections, we need to think instead of how free we will be when the foreign citizens are the majority. (Are they insane?)

Anonymous Toby Temple November 20, 2012 11:28 PM  

Out of curiosity, you ever read any John Muir?

No.

Here is my next question, though... in a practical physical political (and corrupt) world, in order to implement your ideas, you would however first need to "come down", like the addicts say, from the present morbid state of affairs. For instance, you propose "no income tax" and "no socialistic programs". I wouldn't say I disagree, but in the present reality we have a huge amount of the population wrapped up tightly in such things; to end them overnight would cause so much trauma it would cost vastly more to clean up the resulting mess than what you propose to gain. How would you ease it down? Or do you think that creating that sort of wreckage would be useful destruction, and then we just sweep up the debris and begin afresh? (I'm not being snarky there, it is the legitimate m.o. of revolutionists and has been for a long time, it's a thing to consider seriously, and althouth I incline towards distate for it, it is not to be dismissed out of hand.)

Short answer is to take the steps towards the opposite direction. The change from small to big did not happen overnight. It took years. So going back will also take years.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 21, 2012 11:03 AM  

"Short answer is to take the steps towards the opposite direction."

So, it's what, like doing the Hokey Pokey or something? I'm beginning to think you don't have a serious grip on what I'm actually asking. Short answers don't interest me. You got a plan, a roadmap, a blueprint, a something? Serious burglars case the joint in advance, you realize.

"going back will also take years."

Well naturally. Most everything takes years. But........ what are you actually going to try to DO during those years it takes? How will you know when you're done?

I hear all these libertarians spouting off about their principles, and then when I ask them what they really wanna do they tell me nothing.

It's almost as if you guys weren't serious or something.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 21, 2012 11:49 AM  

So, it's what, like doing the Hokey Pokey or something? I'm beginning to think you don't have a serious grip on what I'm actually asking. Short answers don't interest me. You got a plan, a roadmap, a blueprint, a something? Serious burglars case the joint in advance, you realize.

Neither am I interested in reading your mind.

What you are simply saying is this - I don't like your answer.

Sadly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

I hear all these libertarians spouting off about their principles, and then when I ask them what they really wanna do they tell me nothing.

So telling you something is still nothing? You cute little dishonest snake.

It's almost as if you guys weren't serious or something.

Of course we are not serious. We libertarians have been sharing the message of libertarianism to the public as much as the socialists. We try to convince as much people as we can. But we are never serious about it. ~sarcasm~

Americans will not abandon big government as long as they think big governments are good. It is the people who made the government big. It is also them who will make the government small.

If you think that this is just telling you to do the Hokey Pokey or something then you don't have a serious grip on what I'm actually trying to say to you.

The plan is quite clear. Ron Paul has been putting it to action for years. But he wasn't the first to do it.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 21, 2012 12:39 PM  

"Neither am I interested in reading your mind."

?????

"What you are simply saying is this - I don't like your answer."

???????

"Sadly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

??

None of what you wrote makes a f#cking lick of sense. Maybe I just haven't hit myself on the head hard enough with my brick-like copy of Ayn Rand's famous tome "Bricks Are Heavy" to put myself in a sufficiently skull-battered trance-like state to comprehend your mysticism.

"So telling you something is still nothing? You cute little dishonest snake."

Oh FFS.

"The plan is quite clear. Ron Paul has been putting it to action for years."

And he has achieved what exactly? To much of the electorate he is a kooky old laughingstock and they don't know what the hell he is talking about, and then he got shut down in the debates and frozen out of the convention and then his rival but closest ideological ally _still_ lost, and now the MSM is basically pretending he is an unperson.

This was your plan?!

Remember, I was asking you about your PLAN.

Eh forget it, I give up.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 22, 2012 1:01 AM  

None of what you wrote makes a f#cking lick of sense. Maybe I just haven't hit myself on the head hard enough with my brick-like copy of Ayn Rand's famous tome "Bricks Are Heavy" to put myself in a sufficiently skull-battered trance-like state to comprehend your mysticism.

Of course you don't. You do not even understand that your questions are based on your own ignorance on how the US government turned into what it is today.

And he has achieved what exactly? To much of the electorate he is a kooky old laughingstock and they don't know what the hell he is talking about, and then he got shut down in the debates and frozen out of the convention and then his rival but closest ideological ally _still_ lost, and now the MSM is basically pretending he is an unperson.

This was your plan?!


~facepalm~

So what you only know about Ron Paul is that he ran for president of the USA? That's it?

Nevermind the fact that he is also a best selling author of books about liberty and sound economic policies. Nevermind the fact that he got the most support from the military. Nevermind the fact that more and more people are listening to him and started to agree with him.

The plan was to change people's mind about what the role of government really is. That is the only way to change the current government.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts