Freedom loving gun-owner seeks political party…


PDA






StrikeFire83
August 21, 2006, 03:17 AM
I have come to the sad conclusion that there is no political party or group that represents my views. I am tired of voting for the candidate that I hate less. My family is Democrat, but they are anti-gun peddlers of the Nanny State. Gun owners I meet try and tell me that the Republicans are freedom’s best friend, but their actions indicate otherwise. My views aren’t too complicated. Is there no one out there who represents me!?

My Views

I. Complete and totally unadulterated 2nd Amendment rights. (IE unrestricted possession of any firearm, automatic or otherwise, by non-felon citizens)

II. Limited and proportional taxation, like a Flat Tax situation. (IE taxation reserved for building national infrastructure, maintaining the military, and protecting borders)

III. Secure and Policed borders. (IE international borders CLOSED to illegal aliens, OPEN to those willing to go through legal application process)

IV. 1st Amendment Primacy. (IE, Wall between church and state...freedom OF and FROM religion, un-restricted freedom of speech and press, except for child pornography)

V. Constrain United Nations. (IE, cut 99% of funding, use it for what it is...a sounding board only)

VI. Limited but Stringent Corporate Accountability. (IE living wage standard, end to corporate welfare, destruction of current healthcare system)

VII. End the Nanny State. (IE bring back personal responsibility, execute violent criminals, end prosecution of recreational drugs/prostitution)

VIII. Primacy of first 15 Amendments. And Above all, Limited Government.

Now tell me friends, is this too much to ask? Is there ANY political party with views even approaching mine? If so, please fill me in.

If you enjoyed reading about "Freedom loving gun-owner seeks political party…" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Soybomb
August 21, 2006, 03:38 AM
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

I believe open borders is going to be the only problem you'll have, but its far far closer to what you want than the republicans or democrats.

Favorite quotes:
" We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms."
"In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion."

StrikeFire83
August 21, 2006, 03:49 AM
^ I'll read over the Libertarian website. I've been interested in them for awhile. Things that bother me.

1) Abolition of borders. Might be a deal breaker.

2) Complete freedom for mega-corporations.

Akurat
August 21, 2006, 03:53 AM
Only if you have aspirations of sipping watered-down lemonade out of a styrofoam cup, while dreaming about the way the country should be. In other words, you'll end up in high-school gymnasiums or similar with the few like-minded folks in your area, championing some third party with not a chance of ever being elected anything except for city councilman--and even that's a stretch.

I know because I was in your position at your age ('83 is your birthdate, I presume), and searching for the same thing. It never comes.

I think that we as a society have gotten the word 'Democracy' confused with 'Freedom'. They are two entirely different animals. We live in a democracy, and with that comes conciliations and comprimise. Things will always, more or less, rest in the center of political view. Unfortunately the center is drifting slowly to the left.

Other posters -- idealists -- will insist that such thing does exist and that it's do-able. I'm sorry to be negative, or come across as having given up. I haven't. It's realism, not pessimism. I think that the only hope -- our only hope -- lies in stopping that drift and slowly pushing things back the right way. The "right" isn't perfect, but the kind of thing I described above only help things drift further than they already have.

If you get personal satisfaction from knowing you voted for the candidate that best suits your views, fantastic--vote your heart and be proud. If you're interested in stopping that drift, join the NRA, GOA, Minutemen, or any organizations that support your causes and bring them into the spotlight--and use your votes efficiently.

Frog48
August 21, 2006, 03:53 AM
Libertarian Party is about as close as you're going to get, for what you were asking for.

evan price
August 21, 2006, 06:15 AM
You know the problem with Libertarians is taxes ARE necessary, to pay for more than just infrastructure. What to do with people who are GENUINELY down on their luck and needing help? What to do about local situations such as schools, roads, fire departments, etc? Who decides what gets spent on and who makes the decisions? Noninterference for or against religions: Do they pay taxes too? Do they then pay for helping those who are now abandoned due to lack of "programs"?
Libs sound fine on the surface but dive deep and they have the same lack of answers.

My personal pref is that a more strict constitutional form be adopted as orginally intended: Anything not strictly enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights go to the states.

Sure you could say, the Constitution does not have a law against murder. Or rape. Or theft. etc. but I have a feeling that such basic laws would be the first ones passed in each state. Or nobody would live in a state that legalized murder. If you don't like your state's laws, move to one you DO like.

Same thing I tell people talking about how bad the US is: If you don't like it, MOVE.

strambo
August 21, 2006, 06:18 AM
"IE living wage standard"

This one runs counter to everything else and is very problematic. It requires a "nanny-state" to accomplish. Who decides what a "living wage" is, does it account for regional cost of living fluctuations, who and how is it enforced, how many jobs will be lost/businesses go under because of it?

You can't make someone take the huge risk of starting and running a business and you can't make someone stay in business when the nanny rules make it unprofitable.

RealGun
August 21, 2006, 08:49 AM
Successful political parties are inherently moderate, unless referring to those that become dictatorships. At best, ones whole package of political views would align with the dominant force within a party which had candidates with a chance of winning an election.

Secular conservatives have no home. Religious leftists have no home. Fiscally conservative gun nuts have no home, etc., etc.

It is perhaps a bit like living in a city. You don't like your neighbors but you live there anyway for your own reasons and considering the alternatives of country life that would be too boring for you or offer little employment opportunity.

Green Lantern
August 21, 2006, 10:38 AM
Glad the Libertarians support RKBA...cuz' if they support open borders, a lot more of us will be NEEDING guns for protection! :what:

bogie
August 21, 2006, 10:57 AM
Open borders? Needing protection?

I'm not worried about people who want to work. I'm worried about people who want to commit crimes. Personally, for everyone who enters on a "work permit visa," they oughta deport a welfare recipient...

Realistically, our political parties are exercises in voting against, not voting for...

RealGun
August 21, 2006, 11:15 AM
Glad the Libertarians support RKBA...cuz' if they support open borders, a lot more of us will be NEEDING guns for protection!

I am not a fan of the LP platform, but realistically Republicans and Democrats are in favor of open borders too, although perhaps for different philosophical reasons. The current crop in Congress and the White House talks a lot and does nothing substantial, going into a Congressional election trying to create the illusion that something meaningful will be done about illegal immigration.

They will address it as part of "the war on terrorism" and that's about it, completely evading the central concerns that citizens really have. They will be serious about it when addressing the "anchor baby" question, the fundamental flaw in all of the proposals so far. The one most likely to meet the matter head on is Tom Tancredo, a Republican House member and presidential prospect but one that isn't welcome at the current White House.

strambo
August 21, 2006, 11:17 AM
I'm not worried about people who want to work. I'm worried about people who want to commit crimes. Personally, for everyone who enters on a "work permit visa," they oughta deport a welfare recipient...
heh-Bogie For Prez! That was a heck of a platform.:D

tellner
August 21, 2006, 11:50 AM
Good luck. If you vote for the GOP you're supposed to give up all of your freedoms except guns. If you vote for the Democrats you're supposed to give up your guns in exchange for a few of your other freedoms. Vote for the Libertarians and you're giving up your vote.

:barf:

ilbob
August 21, 2006, 11:55 AM
I. Complete and totally unadulterated 2nd Amendment rights. (IE unrestricted possession of any firearm, automatic or otherwise, by non-felon citizens)

Why exclude felons and non-citizens?

II. Limited and proportional taxation, like a Flat Tax situation. (IE taxation reserved for building national infrastructure, maintaining the military, and protecting borders)

What part of the constitution authorizes federal expenditures for building national infrastructure?

III. Secure and Policed borders. (IE international borders CLOSED to illegal aliens, OPEN to those willing to go through legal application process) It is a lot easier to say we should do this than to actually do it. I think it needs to be done, but I am unthrilled with the idea of permanently militarizing our borders.

IV. 1st Amendment Primacy. (IE, Wall between church and state...freedom OF and FROM religion, UN-restricted freedom of speech and press, except for child pornography)
There is no requirement in the constitution that we be free from religion, or that there even be any separation of religion from government. The constitution requires that government stay out of religion, not the other way around as so many falsely believe.

V. Constrain United Nations. (IE, cut 99% of funding, use it for what it is...a sounding board only) I am not willing to give up completely on the UN. I do think the US should decline any further "peacekeeping" missions under UN control.

VI. Limited but Stringent Corporate Accountability. (IE living wage standard, end to corporate welfare, destruction of current health care system) Living wage sounds like you want the government to force employers to pay you more than you are really worth on the open market. A real bad idea. The market should decide what your skills are worth, not a bureaucrat.

I am in favor of eliminating all forms of welfare. So called corporate welfare mostly takes the form of tax breaks for companies that engage in certain favored activities they would not otherwise do. Most companies would be quite happy to stop engaging in those activities if the tax breaks went away.

The current health care system is built on income tax breaks and people other than those receiving the benefits paying for them. It is doomed in the long run. It needs to be replaced with something that has a more rational economic model, like everyone pays for their own health care.

VII. End the Nanny State. (IE bring back personal responsibility, execute violent criminals, end prosecution of recreational drugs/prostitution) This sounds good, but I am not sure there is any widespread support for any of it.

VIII. Primacy of first 15 Amendments. And Above all, Limited Government. Why are the first 15 amendments any more important than the rest of the constitution?

Limited government is easy. Limit revenue and government will have to reduce its scope. It is much harder to actually implement because everyone thinks they can get more out of uncle feelgood then they put in. It is of course false on the whole, because uncle feelgood takes his cut so the net effect is that there is less to go around, but people just don't understand that.

dracphelan
August 21, 2006, 12:09 PM
If you vote for the Democrats you're supposed to give up your guns in exchange for a few of your other freedoms.

Don't forget freedom of speech:
"You can't say that, it might offend someone."

Freedom of association:
"Your private club is not diverse enough. You have to recruit from these categories."

Freedom to teach your child as you wish:
"You can't homeschool your child. You don't have the proper credentials and you don't belong to the proper union."

Freedom to improve your lot in life:
"You make to much money. We will take 80% of it and give it these people who have never worked a day in their lives."

All of the above came from conversations with a person who routinely represents the Democratic Party of Dallas County at state and national conventions.

squarooticus
August 21, 2006, 12:24 PM
Let's face facts: the constitution is just a pretty piece of paper, nothing more. It doesn't mean anything anymore, and hasn't since at least 1916, possibly 1865. (1916 = federal reserve, income tax, gold exchange standard, and direct election of senators; 1865 = membership in the US no longer voluntary.) Constitutional republics were a nice try, but are deeply flawed and---like all governments---subject to corruption and neverending expansion.

I recommend reading some Rothbard ("What has government done to our money?" (http://www.mises.org/money.asp)) or Hoppe ("Democracy: The God That Failed" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765808684/sr=8-1/qid=1156172723/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-0786798-4518234?ie=UTF8)) and becoming familiar with anarcho-capitalism/natural order. One of Hoppe's very convincing theses is that democracy is fundamentally incompatible with liberty. I used to be a minarchist (supporter of minimal government) but reading Hoppe's book convinced me that all government is antithetical to liberty and, furthermore, unnecessary.

Here are some brief articles to get you started:

Why Abolishing Government Would Not Bring Chaos (http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds162.html) by Brad Edmonds
What It Means to Be an Anarcho-capitalist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html) by N. Stephan Kinsella
A Libertarian Cheatsheet (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/alston3.html) by Wilton D. Alston


The only way to guarantee your rights in perpetuity is to be a free man (or woman): that is, to engage only in voluntary associations with other people and not to submit to a coercive territorial jurisdiction monopolist (i.e., a government) whose influence you cannot escape once you determine its rules are no longer beneficial to you.

Cheers,
Kyle

RealGun
August 21, 2006, 12:29 PM
What part of the constitution authorizes federal expenditures for building national infrastructure? - ilbob

Interstate commerce jurisdiction. Who else is supposed to do it?

There is no requirement in the constitution that we be free from religion, or that there even be any separation of religion from government. The constitution requires that government stay out of religion, not the other way around as so many falsely believe. - ilbob

It's not that they "falsely believe". They just disagree with you.

I am not willing to give up completely on the UN. I do think the US should decline any further "peacekeeping" missions under UN control.

That's right out of the leftist play book.

The market should decide what your skills are worth, not a bureaucrat.

The world market or the national market? Is there some particular reason why the middle class has to be subsidized?

I am in favor of eliminating all forms of welfare. So called corporate welfare mostly takes the form of tax breaks for companies that engage in certain favored activities they would not otherwise do. Most companies would be quite happy to stop engaging in those activities if the tax breaks went away.

The only thing wrong with welfare is that recipients can't be parented because it would infringe on their rights, some of which I think should be set aside under the circumstances. Persistent recipients also cannot be sterilized to prevent children they and society can't afford to support. The closest we come to parenting is limiting what food stamps will buy...no alcohol or cigarettes, etc. We throw money at the problem but never really fix it. In essence, our "values" are a suicide pact.

Zundfolge
August 21, 2006, 12:32 PM
No party is going to give you all of what you want ... the GOP is partway there, and the LP is partway there.

You might look into the Republican Liberty Caucus (http://www.rlc.org/) (basically libertarian minded Republicans trying to push the GOP into a more libertarian direction).

ArmedBear
August 21, 2006, 12:35 PM
2) Complete freedom for mega-corporations.

Something to consider about that part of the platform. I don't have a problem with it, because I consider the whole context.

The problems we have with "mega-corporations" generally have to do with the power they wield, using our government as their weapon.

Take away the regulations that they are able to use against would-be competitors, subsidies and "bailouts" taken from your tax money and mine, tax "incentives" they get, etc., and a "mega-corporation" is just a company that has been very successful in the marketplace.

Some of the same things can be said about open borders. Here in California, our objection to illegal immigrants comes mostly from the fact that we the law-abiding are forced pay the cost (about $3500 per illegal alien, AFAIK). Take away the "free" stuff, and few people have any objection to letting people do some of our hard physical labor for wages.

The only problem I have with the Libertarian Party (my own party) is the assumption that all behavior is motivated by rational self-interest, particularly economic self-interest and the interest in taking care of one's own family. This is true, for many of us.

But it's NOT true of our worst enemies, be they Islamo-fascists, gun-grabbers, or socialists. Clearly, things like hatred of others for various reasons, and an irrational lust for corrupt power, DO motivate people.

What does one do with that? I don't know.

BigG
August 21, 2006, 12:57 PM
If you vote for the Democrats you're supposed to give up your guns in exchange for a few of your other freedoms.

While this sounds good as a soundbite, I don't think the democrats support any freedoms; they grant entitlements, and let you know you owe them. :rolleyes:

The RKBA is an absolute right, guaranteed by the Constitution. These other things you speak of are entitlements, big difference.

tcgeol
August 21, 2006, 01:01 PM
I agree with the original poster on everything but IV and VI. You can't truly have freedom of religion and freedom from religion at the same time. That is a contradiction in terms. The only way to have freedom from religion is to pretty much have a de facto atheistic society, which then conflicts with other's freedom of religion.

A living wage is just another expression of the nanny state idea. The government has no authority to control wages. That is a free market prerequisite.

That said, for me I have to stick with the Republican party, even though it means holding my nose while I vote most of the time. The thought of Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house and Hillary as president scare me more than the Republicans do.

RealGun
August 21, 2006, 01:14 PM
I used to be a minarchist (supporter of minimal government) but reading Hoppe's book convinced me that all government is antithetical to liberty and, furthermore, unnecessary. - squarooticus

Even a home needs government. Two or more people without their exclusive space need rules that mean something.

strambo
August 21, 2006, 01:30 PM
The thought of Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house and Hillary as president scare me more than the Republicans do. Yeah, I'm gonna look into the Republican Liberty Caucus...a push towards libertarian is just what they (we) need, not a push to the right. Though the libertarian direction is a little right of where the repubs are now.

I say this in every such thread...even though I don't like many things in the libertarian platform, I would vote for libertarians at all levels of govt. local, state and federal except president. They need to stop grandstanding and put up good candidates at lower levels. This will push the Republicans to be more libertarian in order to get some of their base back. The dems will at least pay more lip service to libertarian ideas so it looks like they are reasonable and this will reinforce to the voting public that libertarian ideas have merit. Heck, even if Dems vehemently oppose libertarian ideas, they will be on the table for discussion.

The Libertarians need to express their platform in a common sense manner. Instead of saying "We want to reduce the Fed gov to 1/10th size" which scares the heck out of most people...they should say "We want to reduce the size of Fed gov. in the next 4 years by 10%" Reasonable, attainable short-term goal, the voters don't need to know the long term goal (it won't be a secret, anyone could look it up and get better informed). It's about getting the average voter's vote who isn't gonna do much thinkin' or research. Gun grabbing Dems don't (for the most part) say they want to abolish the 2nd amendment and get rid of all guns. They say they want to outlaw "assault weapons" with no sporting purpose and act like they hunt.

squarooticus
August 21, 2006, 01:39 PM
Even a home needs government. Two or more people without their exclusive space need rules that mean something.
Yes, but the rules are determined by the person who owns the space. In the case of a home, that person is the homeowner, who will set the rules by which the household is to be run, and if the other inhabitants don't like it, they can leave.

Effectively, this is the way households are run today: the inhabitants voluntarily agree to abide by the set of rules determined by the homeowner, and when disagreements happen, there is usually some attempt at conflict resolution. Ultimately, however, one inhabitant may decide he doesn't like the rules anymore, and therefore he will choose to leave. This takes lots of forms: roommates moving out, divorce, emancipation, etc.

The precise difference between this situation and government is that the homeowner cannot impose his rules and then use violence against you to make you obey the rules and to keep you from leaving. That is not just a major point of distinction, it is the entire point.

I implore you to read some of the articles I posted instead of rehashing arguments against order-without-government that have already been effectively addressed by authors much more persuasive and articulate than myself.

Besides, my objection to government is primarily ethical, not utilitarian. My starting point is, "Government is fundamentally incompatible with liberty." Thus, the next question is, "How would order exist without government?" Your assumption that there would be no order without government is not just unfounded, it is wrong. If you want to learn why, read about it.

Kyle

ilbob
August 21, 2006, 01:59 PM
What part of the constitution authorizes federal expenditures for building national infrastructure? - ilbob


Interstate commerce jurisdiction. Who else is supposed to do it?
Horse hockey! The commerce clause has been overused and overextended to the point that anything that ever moved in interstate commerce or might move in interstate commerce, or in some way might have some effect on interstate commerce is now considered fair game. You cannot possibly believe that was the intent of the framers. I will grant you that there is clearly some authority to build roads and "needful buildings", but do you seriously believe the writers would have accepted the idea that what we take as commonplace today was their intent?




There is no requirement in the constitution that we be free from religion, or that there even be any separation of religion from government. The constitution requires that government stay out of religion, not the other way around as so many falsely believe. - ilbob


It's not that they "falsely believe". They just disagree with you.
No. they are just plain wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; It does not state anywhere in the first amendment that religion cannot be a part of government nor that religion cannot influence government. It is very clear that government cannot
establish a state religion and cannot interfere with the exercise of religion.


I am not willing to give up completely on the UN. I do think the US should decline any further "peacekeeping" missions under UN control.


That's right out of the leftist play book.

Leftist playbook? You are way out in left field on that one. I am not willing to give up completely on the UN does not by any stretch of the imagine mean I am willing to surrender one ounce of US sovereignty to the UN. you should have grasped that by the "decline any further "peacekeeping" missions under UN control" comment. It may well have its uses as a debating forum, and some of the constituent organizations may well have some value, as long as US taxpayers do not have to fund them.


The market should decide what your skills are worth, not a bureaucrat.


The world market or the national market? Is there some particular reason why the middle class has to be subsidized?

I don't think anyone should be subsidized, middle class, upper class, or no class. Many things influence what a person's skills are worth. one of those things is his proximity to where the work needs to be done. It is often true that skills in demand in one area are are not in demand in another.

Soybomb
August 21, 2006, 02:10 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; It does not state anywhere in the first amendment that religion cannot be a part of government nor that religion cannot influence government.
We have different intrepretations of "respecting an establishment of religion." For all the freedoms the founders favored, I don't see how they favored people being forced to pay for others to exercise religion.

ArmedBear
August 21, 2006, 02:24 PM
Regarding the religion thing...

I there is a good deal of misunderstanding about it, and that both "sides" LIKE it that way. There is, however, a rational way to look at things, and the results really aren't so scary.

Soybomb talks about it being wrong to be forced to pay for anyone's religion. I'd totally agree. And furthermore, tax-exempt status for churches appears to me to be a violation of the First Amendment, because it is "a law respecting an establishment of religion." Why? The tax code, which is legislation passed by Congress, has to answer the questions "What is a religion?" and "What is a church?"

However, I'd also agree that, "It does not state anywhere in the first amendment that religion cannot be a part of government nor that religion cannot influence government," at least within certain bounds.

For example, we have laws against murder, slavery, etc. At least some of these laws have their origins in religious beliefs. Religion clearly has influenced our government. One might be able to trot out all sorts of statistics to justify what we as a society agree is morally wrong. But such principles as "every individual is equal before God" have had a strong influence on our social mores, and on our laws. In the modern Western tradition, that principle comes from Martin Luther, and I don't think anyone would throw it out because it is "informed by religion."

trapperjohn
August 21, 2006, 02:32 PM
i am afraid part of the reason you will never find a group is that your wants are contradictory.

You claim to love and want freedom but would deny people the freedom to barter for wages (you want a government to dictate what peoples wages are).

In your desire to not be exposed to other peoples religion you want to have a government deny the religious freedom of others who want to express their religion.

If you want a government that stays out of your business you ought to try to get a government that stays out of other peoples business, even if you dissagree with those people.

Zundfolge
August 21, 2006, 02:33 PM
I generally hate "+1" posts, but...


trapperjohn +1 :neener:

squarooticus
August 21, 2006, 02:46 PM
If you want a government that stays out of your business you ought to try to get a government that stays out of other peoples business, even if you dissagree with those people.
As much as I disbelieve that this is possible with any government that can employ force to enforce obedience, I have to say, "hear, hear!" A little less hypocrisy would go a long way toward restoring some of our lost liberty.

Kyle

stevelyn
August 21, 2006, 03:52 PM
Folks make a big issue with the Libertarian's open borders platform.

Understand that if we magically had a Libertarian majority govt tommorrow, open borders wouldn't be public policy until all entitlement programs were axed taking away the incentive for freeloaders to come into the country.

ArmedBear
August 21, 2006, 03:57 PM
Understand that if we magically had a Libertarian majority govt tommorrow, open borders wouldn't be public policy until all entitlement programs were axed taking away the incentive for freeloaders to come into the country.

Exactly.

Remember, the United States is what she is today, largely because of several waves of immigrants who came here to work hard and seek their fortunes by working hard.

That helps the economy grow, which buoys all of us. No one need fear hardworking immigrants, except for native freeloaders.

However, as long as the system incents an influx of freeloaders, then we can't have open borders. I don't think many Libertarians would disagree.

mljdeckard
August 21, 2006, 04:42 PM
(putting on my Nomex suit, I know I'm about to need it,)

The only real problem I have with the LP is that it's full of libertarians. The platform works better for me than any other, but (this is the boo part,) when I go to the gun shows and see the folks running the membership drive table, they, um,..........give me the willies. Good folks to be sure, just kind of....fringy.

I like the fringe. I like being able to be an independent, and not have any party take my vote for granted. BUT, I also acknowledge that the reason I have a fringe to dwell in at all is the fact that the two major parties blanket so many issues, there isn't a lot of fringe left. If we DIDN'T have the two-party system, nothing would get done. It would all be fringe.

I know that voting these days is like choosing between Beastmaster III at 3am on Cinemax, and Beastmaster II at 2:30 on HBO. There is no winning. There are only degrees of losing. I HATE George Bush for: Dropping the Microsoft anti-trust suit, making government bigger than ever, taking for granted that America will understand WHY he has his foreign policy, not fighting back when the extreme left throws mudballs at him, not saying in so many words that the '94 assualt weapons ban was an unjustified infringement of rights, failing to resolve the single biggest hurdle in protecting America, (resolving the turf war between the FBI and CIA,) refusing to grow a pair on illegal immigration, and being so myopic in the war on terror as to fail to adapt. (Rumsfeld syndrome.)

So, walk away. Specialize. Take your loyalty and support away from the mainstream. Just remember. Every vote you put away from the republican party is a vote that Clinton, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, et al don't have to overcome. I'm sure everyone who voted for Ralph Nader, and let Gore and Kerry LOSE feels like they did the right thing by putting Bush in office.

squarooticus
August 21, 2006, 04:59 PM
I HATE George Bush for: Dropping the Microsoft anti-trust suit, making government bigger than ever
This is what many people refer to as "cognitive dissonance."

Do you want big government with a lot of power over people (whether exercised for "good" or not) or not? A government powerful enough to take Microsoft to court for abusing its "monopoly" (you know, the one consumers gave it for giving them what they want?) is powerful enough to take away your guns and tax you into the poor house. You can't have it both ways.

Put another way: choose one: freedom or government-enforced justice.

FWIW, I have been a Linux user for 12 years and a software developer for 25 years (of my 30), so I hate Windows as much as the next power user. But I understand that liberty shouldn't stop at my front door or be limited to those things I agree with.

Cheers,
Kyle

Oleg Volk
August 21, 2006, 05:03 PM
I'd like my own country. Leaveustheheckalonia. Neutral and by whatever its citizens bring or buy.

EmGeeGeorge
August 21, 2006, 05:10 PM
+1 to armedbear...

"Exactly. Remember, the United States is what she is today, largely because of several waves of immigrants who came here to work hard and seek their fortunes by working hard.

That helps the economy grow, which buoys all of us. No one need fear hardworking immigrants, except for native freeloaders.

However, as long as the system incents an influx of freeloaders, then we can't have open borders. I don't think many Libertarians would disagree."

limbaughfan
August 21, 2006, 05:37 PM
One word:Libertarian

mljdeckard
August 21, 2006, 05:52 PM
Microsoft defines monopoly. They have demonstrably and deliberately squashed the competion at the cost of consumer choice and value. They should be at least penalized. I'm for hands-off business, but not to the point where one company can control a critical industry. (I could care less about their money, let them make as much as they want.)

The way in which the government is bigger is mostly Homeland Security. Amid all the hoopla and new cabinet position, I still don't know a single thing that the government can do MORE effectively than it could BEFORE 9-11, or Katrina for that matter. If it were EFFECTIVE, I would keep my mouth shut. But all they have done is create another beurocratic process that has infused itself into every other federal agency, with negligible (if any) enhancement to our safety and security. I think they would have done better to fill in the cracks of existing agencies. Now it's another agency and cabinet post that no future president will want to go on record to undo it.

Zundfolge
August 21, 2006, 06:54 PM
Microsoft defines monopoly. They have demonstrably and deliberately squashed the competion at the cost of consumer choice and value.
Bovine Scat.

I can do absolutely EVERYTHING one can do on a Windows machine on a non-Windows machine and not use one single line of Microsoft code doing it.

MacOS, UNIX, Linux (which is free), all of them have plenty of software available (often for free) and are actually SUPERIOR operating systems than Windows.

And its been that way for over the last decade.


Just because most people are too dumb to figure out that there are other OSs out there, doesn't mean that Microsoft has anything even CLOSE to being a monopoly.




The myth of the Microsoft Monopoly is another Hegelian Crisis used to give government more power and destroy the free market.

ArmedBear
August 21, 2006, 08:04 PM
+1 Zundfolge

There is not a single major Microsoft product I can think of that doesn't have a viable competitor or three.

You can do anything you need to without using a single one of their products, and some people do. The fact that changing to other products is perceived by many businesses as more expensive than just doing simple upgrades doesn't change that. Microsoft has been in a position for a while now, where any misstep means loss of market share. They couldn't really gain any, and every time there's a new security hole or bug, someone, somewhere switches to Linux or Solaris servers, Linux or Mac workstations, Apache web servers and Firefox browsers, Oracle or MySQL databases, even alternatives to Office and Outlook.

If Microsoft defines a monopoly, then "monopoly" just means "really good at producing and marketing software."

Do I think it's the best? Usually not. But are they forcing anyone to use it? No. Do you have to use it? Nope. If you think you do, you're FAR too ignorant to be passing judgment about the software business.

mljdeckard
August 21, 2006, 09:04 PM
I have been a mac person for 15 years. But Microsoft still has the market cornered, and they act aggressively to prevent competitors to exist. They install their software in a way as to prevent other software from operating on the vast majority of all computers sold in the world. (Or did, before they got busted.) It is not the responsibility of the consumer to learn how not to use windows, if Microsoft is actively working to make sure they can't find it in the first place. No other company or revolution has existed in the same capacity to the same scale before. If Microsoft requires no regulation of any kind, then NO industry or company needs regulation of any kind.

(I'm done.)

Panthera Tigris
August 21, 2006, 09:09 PM
Around here it seems the only things taxes go for are stupid pro sports. Taxes should never be used for sports, IMO. When the police are short handed because it's claimed there's no budget for them, yet 10 million dollars is given to the local pro football teamto build their stadium in addition to stadium taxes, I start to question that taxes are necessary. Seems to me they certainly are not going where they are intended.

StrikeFire83
August 21, 2006, 10:15 PM
Ilbob, you have made many cogent points, however your attempts to twist what I said about the 1st Amendment simply fail.

Let’s look at the text in question: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

And here’s what I said about it: “1st Amendment Primacy. (IE, Wall between church and state...freedom OF and FROM religion”

Nowhere did I say that my rights trump others peoples’. For someone who claims to champion individual liberty and self-solvency, your desire to have me subsidize other people’s religions is odd.

I don’t want a red cent of my tax money to send Johnny to Catholic school, or Achmed to Koran school, or Chiam to Tora school, and the first amendment provides that I shouldn’t have to.

However, the Bush Administration takes my money, and puts it into his unconstitutional “faith based initiative” which of course means it goes solely to Christian churches, mostly evangelical ones at that.

If you can’t admit that’s a violation of the 1st Amendment and flies in the faces of everything the framers intended, then you need to take the blinders off.

Zundfolge
August 21, 2006, 10:59 PM
But Microsoft still has the market cornered, and they act aggressively to prevent competitors to exist.
Yet you've been running Macs for 15 years? How is this possible if Microsoft kept competitors from existing? I just entered in that previous sentence typing on a Macintosh running Firefox ... I don't have a single piece of Microsoft software on my machine right now and I do every thing I want to (in fact the only reason I'm not running Linux is because I am a professional Graphic Designer and Adobe hasn't made Linux versions of their products ... but I don't need Windows to run Photoshop).

They install their software in a way as to prevent other software from operating on the vast majority of all computers sold in the world. (Or did, before they got busted.)
:scrutiny:

Thats more BS.

I've run machines with Windows, Linux and currently I'm on a Mac and I've NEVER had a piece of software that wouldn't install or run because of another piece of Microsoft software. Plus every machine I've run Linux on came preinstalled with Windows ... Windows did nothing to prevent me from installing Linux (and in a couple of cases, dual booting Linux and Windows).

It is not the responsibility of the consumer to learn how not to use windows
Yes, it is. You have to CHOOSE to buy a machine with Windows installed, or buy a copy of Windows if you want to use it. If you don't like Windows, there are plenty of options out there that don't involve sending money to Redmond WA.

Windows was created by Microsoft. Just because its the most successful operating system doesn't mean that they should have to give it away or allow its competitors access to their code and markets any more than Hank Reardon should have had to give away the formula to Reardon Metal.


I don’t want a red cent of my tax money to send Johnny to Catholic school, or Achmed to Koran school, or Chiam to Tora school, and the first amendment provides that I shouldn’t have to.

However, the Bush Administration takes my money, and puts it into his unconstitutional “faith based initiative” which of course means it goes solely to Christian churches, mostly evangelical ones at that.

I can see your point (although I think thats a bit of a mountain out of a molehill), however I don't think government should be taking money from ANYONE to give to ANYONE, nor should the Federal Government have ANYTHING to do with educating our children.

Oh and don't get me started with tax subsidies to sports teams (and the use of Eminent Domain Theft to build their stadiums).

Tom Bri
August 21, 2006, 11:17 PM
To Evan Price.

Libertarians do have answers to the things you mention, you just have to read a little deeper into what they write about themselves, not just what others say about them.

For example, Libertarians as opposed to anarchists, do believe some government is needed, so there has to be some way to fund it.

Poor folks down on their luck do need help. Ever heard of the Red Cross, the Shriners, the Salvation Army?

Justin
August 21, 2006, 11:20 PM
I have been a mac person for 15 years. But Microsoft still has the market cornered, and they act aggressively to prevent competitors to exist. They install their software in a way as to prevent other software from operating on the vast majority of all computers sold in the world. (Or did, before they got busted.) It is not the responsibility of the consumer to learn how not to use windows, if Microsoft is actively working to make sure they can't find it in the first place. No other company or revolution has existed in the same capacity to the same scale before. If Microsoft requires no regulation of any kind, then NO industry or company needs regulation of any kind.

How about that.

A self-deconstructing post.

--------------------------

Primary characteristics of a monopoly

* Single Sellers

A pure monopoly is an industry in which a single firm is the sole producer of a good or the sole provider of a service. This is usually caused by a blocked entry.

* No Close Substitutes

The product or service is unique in ways which go beyond brand identity, and cannot be easily replaced (a monopoly on water from a certain spring, sold under a certain brand name, is not a true monopoly; neither is Coca-Cola, even though it is differentiated from its competition in flavor).

* Price Maker

In a pure monopoly a single firm controls the total supply of the whole industry and is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price, by changing the quantity supplied (an example of this would be the situation of viagra before competing drugs emerged). In subtotal monopolies (for example diamonds or petroleum at present) a single organization controls enough of the supply that even if it limits the quantity, or raises prices, the other suppliers will be unable to make up the difference and take significant amounts of market share.

* Blocked Entry

The reason a pure monopolist has no competitors is that certain barriers keep would-be competitors from entering the market. Depending upon the form of the monopoly these barriers can be economic, technological, legal (basic patents on certain drugs), or of some other type of barrier that completely prevents other firms from entering the market.

Yes, my source was Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly), but the source jibes with what I learned in econ.

Diomed
August 22, 2006, 04:05 AM
It does not state anywhere in the first amendment that religion cannot be a part of government nor that religion cannot influence government.

This merely means "it's okay for a religion to run the government, but it's not okay for the government to run a religion".

Sorry, no. Theocracy is bad, and whether it's direct or being done via puppet strings makes not a whit of difference.

Lupinus
August 22, 2006, 04:31 AM
I personally come closest to the Libertarian platform and consider myself a conservative libertarian.

About the only issue I outright disagree with is the borders.

Autolycus
August 22, 2006, 05:13 AM
Should children be forced to work? I ask that because everyone who attacks welfare recipients should look at who is on welfare. I believe that 70% of the people who benefit from welfare are usually children. Meaning under age 18.

squarooticus
August 22, 2006, 09:18 AM
Should children be forced to work?
This is the wrong question. The right question is, "Should someone be allowed to steal my property with the help of a group of armed thugs?"

If that group of armed thugs were anyone but the government, you would say "no." I say "no" all the time. We are not that far apart, so my natural next question would be why you think property rights violations under force are ever acceptable.

Once you answer these questions the way I do, you need to look for solutions among the remaining possibilities.

Cheers,
Kyle

Kentak
August 22, 2006, 09:27 AM
I don't know how to characterize your "platform," but it's not libertarian. And it does contain a lot of contradictory positions. You don't want a nanny state, but you are somehow going to require corporations to pay a living wage without regard to the principles of the free market? Sorry, doesn't fly.

K

Thin Black Line
August 22, 2006, 09:34 AM
Gun owners I meet try and tell me that the Republicans are freedom’s best friend, but their actions indicate otherwise.

Freedom.

As a nominal Republican, I have to apologize for the rest of my "party".
There is still some hope for candidates at the state level, but the rest
get completely corrupted in DC.

The problem is the neocon's so-called philosophy based on the "might makes
right" style of government control. They have completely beat down and
knocked out the old line conservatives and Constitutionalists like myself. We
have typically been the ones who actually fought this country's wars and
been responsible for cleaning up the messes --from both partiyas-- both
at home and around the world.

Because of the neocon's lust for power and control, you now have a
Republican Party that in its action has moved more closely to the
socioeconomic outcomes long sought by the Democrats.

The final outcome will range from censorship of thought, as evident in
practice even here among certain neocon mods, to the eventual tightening
restrictions on RKBA.

AWBII? You can count on it. It is inevitable with what has already taken
hold of the demos and is currently taking hold among the repubs. They
all fear We The People and can't even handle open debate any more.

Again, I'm sorry about the Repubs. We've tried to regain the freedom once
espoused, but it is slipping away.

xd9fan
August 22, 2006, 12:52 PM
"Libertarians often find themselves aligned with "conservatives" on issues of economic freedom-lower taxes, cutting goverment bureaucracy, easing regulations on business and looking to volunteerism and charitable giving in the private sector to provide society with a "safety net. But they side with liberals on personal tolerance, and respecting an individual's right to choose his or her lifestyle.

On the other hand, the view of most Libertarians is that Republicans and Democrats are each deplorably eager to use the force of the government as a tool of oppession against those with whom they disagree or disapprove of-either to steal thier wealth or restrict their personal freedom."


This is a nice quote but a little outdated..since "conservatives" no longer exist. But the last paragraph is why I woke up and left the GOP last year......yes I know I've backed myself into a wall.....yes I've made myself a serious political minority. BUT I will not continue to feed/reward the beast.

And I would love a party that HAD a domestic aganda. :rolleyes: Iraq has enough representation, I would LOVE representation here in the U. S. on less Govt, less taxes, less gun control, less Social security....etc.

Everybodys got to find what will work for them. No party is perfect nor will they ever be. The Big Two, just play with individual liberty like an abstract concept. Good for flowerly speeches come election time but thats about it.

In the end, I will default on who ever respects the Bill of Rights and Individual Liberty........and yes even if it trumps "the war on Terror" and crap thats "for your protection"

The Gun Litmus test, from a previous thread here at THR, is a very good test. Its a very good start.

Lupinus
August 22, 2006, 01:04 PM
Should children be forced to work? I ask that because everyone who attacks welfare recipients should look at who is on welfare. I believe that 70% of the people who benefit from welfare are usually children. Meaning under age 18.

Trust me, my mother is disabled and got welfare and what not, it isn't enough to raise a child.

Everyone without a lagit disability needs to be kicked off welfare. If they have a child kick them in the ass make them get a job or take their kids away and give them to people who want kids and cant if you are that worried about them.

It's not my job to support the little demons you keep popping out like that thing between your legs is a damned water slide you cant pay for

squarooticus
August 22, 2006, 01:13 PM
the view of most Libertarians is that Republicans and Democrats are each deplorably eager to use the force of the government as a tool of oppession
The problem is that this is inevitable: when people give some group the legitimacy to steal from and remove the rights of others without reprisal, eventually this power will be used to the greatest extent that will not eliminate that legitimacy.

The American experiment worked acceptably for about 70 years, but it all went downhill once the national government gained compulsory control over the states through legitimately keeping dissenting states from rejecting the national government through secession.

It's hard to imagine a better Constitution than the one we have with respect to preserving liberty for its citizens. Yet it failed. This isn't evidence in favor of the compatibility of government with liberty.

Cheers,
Kyle

Justin
August 22, 2006, 01:19 PM
Should children be forced to work?

Nobody's stopping you from helping the darling little tykes out of the kindness of your heart.

I just object to your belief that everyone ought be forced, at gun point, to "help" them.

SIOP
August 22, 2006, 02:34 PM
AWBII? You can count on it.

Absolutely. Maybe sooner than you all think. Remember, Bush has stated on numerous occasions that he would sign such a bill. And if the Democrats regain control this November, you can bet it will be one of the first things on their agenda.

"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society."
George W. Bush, Houston Chronicle, August 12, 1999


And, don't forget which ex-president was instrumental in making the first assault weapons ban happen.

That's right, Ronald Reagan, who directly lobbied Congress for passage of the first AWB, right after he personally helped get the Brady Bill rammed through.

And after he signed legislation banning new machinegun production for civilians.

Soybomb
August 22, 2006, 02:43 PM
Take your loyalty and support away from the mainstream. Just remember. Every vote you put away from the republican party is a vote that Clinton, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, et al don't have to overcome.
I understand the sentiment but at the same time the majority knows how to get my vote back if they want it. I'm not a single issue voter and I don't really feel like the 2 major parties are all that different. Vote for either and I lose.

"Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free." --Harry Browne

xd9fan
August 22, 2006, 03:18 PM
GOP gun owners have another disconnect: They run to the Federal Govt for protection in the "war on Terror", giving up the Right to protect yourself where ever you are (ie an airplane) yet wonder why that same Federal Govt and its politicans want you to lay down your arms for personal protection and reply on central planning like LEOs. Either personal protection works EVERYWHERE or it doesnt. My life is just as worth while protecting on the ground as in the air. I dont give up personal responsibilty of the protection of my life on the ground.....why would I give up my personal responsibility for the protection of my life to a pissed off TSA Govt worker???

There is another disconnect when freedom loving gun-owners who want to protect their own porperty from the REAL invasion of illegels and at the same time having President Bush calling them vigilantes.

On the radio today Bob Davis wonders why we dont treat the War on terror like americans treated WW2.

Maybe the american people see a weird disconnect when at one point we are told that we are at code yellow (so be extra extra worrried) but at the same time being told by the fed Govt to just go about your business and keep shopping at target and "dont worry the federal Govt is on it"

Well which is it, either we have a personal stake in protecting this land, city, community.............or, we dont, ......because the Federal Govt will save us.

Americans have got to get off this addiction to the federal govt, and thinking that if there is an anwser it must come from Govt.

But I'm just a swiss militia wanna be thinking that if you want something done it should be done grassroots first.

If you enjoyed reading about "Freedom loving gun-owner seeks political party…" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!