Freedom loving gun-owner seeks political party…

[StrikeFire83]

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.

 

[Soybomb]

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]

^ 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]

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]

Libertarian Party is about as close as you're going to get, for what you were asking for.

 

[evan price]

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]

"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]

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]

Glad the Libertarians support RKBA...cuz' if they support open borders, a lot more of us will be NEEDING guns for protection!

 

[bogie]

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]

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]

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.

 

[tellner]

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.

 

[ilbob]

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]

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]

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?") or Hoppe ("Democracy: The God That Failed") 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 by Brad Edmonds
• What It Means to Be an Anarcho-capitalist by N. Stephan Kinsella
• A Libertarian Cheatsheet 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]

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]

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 (basically libertarian minded Republicans trying to push the GOP into a more libertarian direction).

 

[ArmedBear]

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]

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.

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

 

[tcgeol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.