The Bush gun myth

[Cactus]

Using your definition, in this nation that number would be even less than the number of Libertarian voters.

Now, how about letting Don answer for himself. He's a big boy!

 

[gilles3297]

As a Lib I can only agree that there ain't many of us and issues or no issues, not many people see the Libs as an answer. The question is then with the Dems and Reps re-election rate at like 97% how do we stop them from voting themselves more power over our lives each day? Most of the sheeple will continue to ignore the loss of rights as long as there is sufficient grass in front of their noses. They either don't care or don't know were the road is leading.

 

[Moparmike]

The Gauntlet of Challenge is being laid before YOU.

I would like anyone to tell me why I should vote for Dubbya WITHOUT using any form of a "lesser of two evils" arguement. Just because he was pro-ccw in Texas doesnt mean squat when both his words (saying he will sign the AWB2) and his actions (read: NONE/APATHY) lean much more towards anti than pro.

Like I said before, if he signs it my vote for him is TOAST. If he doesnt sign it and campaigns against it, well, he will have a leg-up over the LP candidate. I will still consider both candidates for my vote.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Bush gave you and income tax refund.

He stood up to the UN and world opinion (for better or worse, but the fact is, no other major candidate would have even considered it).

He signed the partial birth abortion ban (I think), which I guess you might not like if you think killing babies is ok.

 

[jfh]

The Gauntlet of Challenge is being laid before YOU.

I don't think there is a good answer that does not use the 'lesser of two evils,' Mike. The analyses we (all of us individually) use to understand our behavior are complex, and sometimes they are not the ones we find ourselves most rationally comfortable with.

If this election shapes up like the last one in its closing weeks--and I suspect it will--then clearly the damage done by voting for the least-damaging approach to full 2nd restoration has, IMHO, the greatest merit.

And I have NO trouble imagining this scenario--that, triggered by some 'external' issue (two of them: "another Columbine," and "behind in the polls" showing a GC resonance in undecided voters) Congress does serve up the new AWB bill / extension, and GWB signs it.

What will I do then? Well, I don't know, to be honest.

 

[Moparmike]

Well jfh, at least you are honest about it.

Lone_Gunman, standing up to the UN is most certainly commendable, which says something about the sorry state our nation is in when someone having the testicular fortitude to stand up to the UN of all people is commendable.

"Killing babies" is inflamatory language and you know it. It gets arguements started and threads shut down. Lets not go there, shall we? (And BTW, I do agree with banning PARTIAL-BIRTH type abortions. They are abhorrent. But I thought Clinton did that in his last term? )

He did not give "me" a tax cut. I am still consdidered a dependent, and dont make enough. However, I still dont get all of my taxes back.

 

[Don Galt]

Cactus-- You're eather deliberately ignoring, did not read, or did not comprehend my long post that you're replying to. That's the strawman. I will not answer for claims you say I made that I did not made, or your (deliberate?) misrepresentations of what I said.

Inflation has been well above %5 for quite a long time. It is not %2. The figure that the NEWS MEDIA calls inflation is the CPI-- the consumer price index. The CPI is issued by the Federal Reserve (the chief crooks in the operation of inflation to begin with) and is manipulated by changing the items in the basket of goods to keep the percieved inflation low.

The reality is that inflation-- by definition the devaluing of the currency-- is the rate at which the M3 moeny supply is growing. For a good economic education on currency matters, I suggest the www.mises.org website.

Snow, who is in the Bush administration, has publically pledged a weak dollar policy. This has resulted already in an increase in the inflation rate, and at the current rates is close to %10 IIRC. You can get monethly M3 data from the Federal Reserve.

Assuming you don't know-- the government is running a massive deficit right now, which has grown at the requests and desire of Bush. There are only three ways to fund deficits-- raid savings, issue money or bonds and raise taxes. Well, the government has no savings, and bush has made a public (though negligble) "tax cut". So all that's left is to issue money and bonds. Since bonds are actually only promises to print more money later (Rather than print the money now, but with interest) the economic effecct of printing money, and printing bonds is pretty similar. And thuse we see the deficit spending program our country is on resulting in massive increase of M3.

By the way, I don't need to explain how an increase in supply lowers costs, do I? OR that money is a commodity and that adding more money to the market lowers the value of each dollar?

 

[Don Galt]

By the way, part of my point which seems to have been missed by everybody is, that if you believe in the constitution, your answer to all the questions in the smallest quiz would be %100 libertarian.

The people who vote for republicans or Democrats do so only because they either have no principles or think that they have to vote against the guy from the other party.

There is no principled argument for voting for any of the parties presidential candidates...

Bush stood up to the UN, but he has done a hundred things that violate the constitution (not the least of which is going to war unconstitutionally).

You may like that he banned abortion (and the onyl difference between partial birth and abortion is the name-- its pure marketing to make people repulsed. I've yet to see a republican who supported it who could articulate the difference) but he opposed the constitution.

He supports the AWB, and in doing so, he opposes the constitution.

You can't have your Assault Weapons Ban and the constitution both-- they are in conflict.

And while in office Bush has already endorsed new gun bans the ATF unconstitutionally, and without congressional action, enacted.

The only thing keeping all these people voting republican (or Democrat) is either self delusion, ignorance or lack of principles.

You can't pick and choose a few legal (but uninspired) actions and ignore all the criminal acctions and say "see this guy is principled".

Yes, Libertarians get a small amount of the vote-- I love how Republicans who claim to be constitutionalists always point at that with glee. Do you realzie that, unconstitutionally, the Republicans along with the Democrats prevent Libertarians from running for office? They practically have to run write in campaigns.

Yeah, our one party system is successful at holding onto the one party system.

And you're GLAD?


But, don't EVER make the mistake of confusing the LP membership, the LP votes, with the libertarian movement. The LP is the small tip of the iceburg, and in reality, if you believed what you say you believe, you'd be a libertarian as well. Hell there shouldn't be a need for an LP if the republicans or the Democrats were the least bit honest.

But they've got you fooled. Just don't be so proud of your foolishness.

 

[mattd]

The news job is to report the news, not make it. Maybe they can't raise brainwashing funds because the news doesn't even report that the guy is running? Like the Terminator, you couldn't go 10 minutes without hearing that the Terminator was running for governor of California. What if the news never reported on him like the 180 other? When he got elected he thanked God and the Media , because (he said this) without their HELP he wouldn't of won.

Unless you live in a key state like Iowa, the ideal of wasting your vote on a libertarian shouldn't even enter the brain. I never voted but when I do it will be for who I want, and not the lesser of 2 evils aka Bush

 

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Don Galt:
If you take the religious wackos (christian, muslim and jew), the hard core communists (CP members) and the outright fascists-- they all make up about %30 of the populace when combined.

Here is a direct quote of what you said, Don. How is my question a misrepresentation of ANYTHING you have said? It is a simple question; hat constitutes a "religious wacko" in your view? Why are you dodging a simple question? You love to throw around that term, so clarify it. You consider yourself a man of such principle, why not answer my question?

Originally posted by Don Galt:
The figure that the NEWS MEDIA calls inflation is the CPI-- the consumer price index.

The CPI has ALWAYS been used as the measure of inflation. Just because YOU don't like the data used doesn't make it invalid. I can also find "wacko" websites that will tell you that the US economy has gone to h*ll since we went off the gold standard. It's irrelevant if the value of the currency is lessening if the costs of goods and services is lessening as well.

Originally posted by Don Galt:
The only thing keeping all these people voting republican (or Democrat) is either self delusion, ignorance or lack of principles.

What arrogance to simply dismiss those who disagree with your political views as delusional, ignorant or unprincipled. Which one am I?

The view must be grand from that self-rightious pedestal you've placed yourself upon!

Originally posted by Don Galt:
The LP is the small tip of the iceburg, and in reality, if you believed what you say you believe, you'd be a libertarian as well.

How dare you question the sincerity of my beliefs! A person that feels they have the franchise on the truth is called a fanatic, Don. That's not company anyone should be proud to share. Apparently Libertarians DO share traits from both the GOP and the Democrats; the intolerance of the hard right and the arrogance of the far left.

The Constitution is not the sole property of the Libertarians and Don Galt to interpret. We have courts for when people disagree. I have yet to see the Libertarian Party challange the constitutionallity of thing they disagree with. They just sit around and pout like a child about how unfair it is and how the system is rigged against them. I can at least admire the ACLU for having the courage to challange things THEY disagree with.

Originally posted by Don Galt:
Do you realzie that, unconstitutionally, the Republicans along with the Democrats prevent Libertarians from running for office? They practically have to run write in campaigns.

The Libertarians always brag about how they are on virtually every ballot in every state. Now you say they are being prevented from running for office by the big bad Republicrats. Which one is it, Don? Typical whining!

 

[Cactus]

Originally posted by mattd:
The news job is to report the news, not make it. Maybe they can't raise brainwashing funds because the news doesn't even report that the guy is running?

Fine mattd! Why don't you tell us who the Libertarian Party candidate for President is! What's the guys name? Who does the media start reporting about? As Sinatra sang; "Start spreading the news".

 

[Don Galt]

Cactus--

All you want to do is attack me personally, and ignore my positions. Selective quoting is not really making your case either-- as you are confused about what I said because you did not read the whole posting, or didn't understand it.

There is some percentage of the population that is completely irrational-- they are totalitarian or anti-liberty for reasons that are not based on reason. They make up %30 of the population. Religious Fundamentalists are a good example.

You concede my point by admitting that even getting on the ballot is difficult for Libertarians-- they often have to sue to have the right to be on the ballot. And so they trumpet it. And you use that excuse to claim that there is no ballot exclusion? Silly!

No arrogance at all, I was simply stating a fact. The majority of americans are simply ignorant of the issues, and would be libertarians if they weren't. They believe what they are told to believe, and never do any investigation. Look at how many Democrats who oppose tax cuts, thinking they only go to the rich.

Your ignorance of inflation is a good example. I am not telling you something that is ideological, and you're disagreeing on ideology. No, I'm telling you a fact, a scientific, objective fact. When you increase the supply of something in an economy, you decrease its price, assuming demand is equal. And yet you disagree with me because you have been told by the nightly news that the CPI is "inflation" and you would rather believe that (hell, you may not even really believe it, but are believing it for convenience) than look at the argument I just made and comprehend it and make a counter argument if you think it is wrong.

Instead you just assert that CPI is inflation and call me a liar. I would rather not have this thread locked because of name calling.

Please, feel free to make a counter argument. But I suggest you read my long post, as your responses indicate that you have not understood the argument I'm making there.

 

[Don Galt]

OH, and Cactus, you're wrong. The constitution is not something that is designed to be interpreted and re-interpreted to suit the goal of convenience.

The constituition was designed to be clear, and free of the need to interpret.

When I Talk about what the constitution says, I'm talking about what it literally says.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Mr. Galt.

I apologize for my delay. I had to go for a long run to air out my head.

You argue well. You make your points and I believe that most of them have some vailidity or could be proven with the right set of facts. I flirted with libertarianism from 1996 until 2001. I am still a core libertarian with a pragmatic side.

However....and I can not believe that I have to argue this side of things....

Pull up the blinds, open the window, take off the tin hat......and look around.

WE the people of the USA have participated in things called ELECTIONS. Those elections, operating in accordance with the constitution, have sent legislators to Washington DC and state houses. They deliberate and make laws. The Executive branch carries out those laws. The Judicial branch interprets those laws. Do I need to cite my sources?

Then we have more elections. And more elections. And so on.

I have yet to find that special commission that directs the electorate, or look behind the curtain to find the Wizard of DC.

We have arrived to where we are because this is what WE have decided that WE want. It may not be what I want and it may not be what YOU want, but it is what it is.

The libertarian ideal, which is great on paper, total freedom and all of that, fails because of PEOPLE. Not allpeople are responsible or self-reliant. Not all people love freedom. Not all people want freedom.

50% of the people are driving a nanny state. The other 50% are trying to stop the nanny state. Some people want no economic or personal freedom (they want absolute security) some people want absolute personal and economic freedom. There exist a whole bunch of people in the middle with differing ideas on how much of each is necessary.

What libertarianism leaves out is the HUMAN factor. There are slugs who suck from society, there are criminals who prey on society, there are deviants who prey on society, there are evil big businesses that will sell snake oil! All of these groups need some checks and balances. A total free market economy with virtually no check on liberty would....turn in to what we have now!!!!

Pick a time in history and we will roll back all of the civil laws that infringe on rights to that time. In a perfect world, we would not have a depression that gave us the misguided FDR policies. We would not have experienced 2 World Wars which ratcheted up security at the expense of freedom. Or the alcohol prohibition which led to organized crime and the National Police. We would not had a civil rights movement which advanced equal rights and then resulted in the unintended consequence of reverse discrimination. We would not have had the 60s and the drug culture leading to abuse and, therefore, regulation.

We can not laugh at F-Troop for getting everything wrong in one thread and then cower in the closet worrying about our bank records in the next.

I agree that the government has too much power. I disagree with your total libertarian solution. The FEDERAL government is limited by the constitution. Competition among states will help the cause of freedom. States can pass laws of a moral nature. Your argument is false in that you limit the Feds and then use the US constitution to limit the states. You can not have it both ways.

What you are proposing is a highway with no lines and no signs, no rules and no penalties. After a few accidents, the rules will evolve, the signs will go up, the lines will get painted, and penalties will be defined. And the state will ask you for your SSN to get a license for the priveledge of driving!!!



In short, some order must exist for all of us to travel on the highway and get to our destination. It is getting crowded out there.

We still have free will. You exercise it very well, as do all of the members of this forum and others. We have the single most powerful weapon for change, and that is the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and ELECTIONS. ANd we have the ability to throw off tyranny with the RKBA. Over 200 million guns and growing.

I wish you success in swaying a few brain cells here and there.

 

[mattd]

Why don't you tell us who the Libertarian Party candidate for President is! What's the guys name?

Don't think they have one already but I was thinking about a Democrat when I wrote that.

 

[Cactus]

Don,

And all YOU do is ignore questions! How do you expect anyone to make a counter arguement when you refuse to clarify your position.

If you wish to argue on an even ground, you need to be reading from the same playbook. To argue that the CPI, the index that EVERY economist outside the Mises Institute uses, is not the inflation index is simply contrarian.

If you wish to debate using data, information and facts that only YOU use, have a debate with yourself. How do you expect to convince people of your views when you can't even argue using the common language that the entire world uses! If you want to debate the valuation of the currency, argue that. But don't try telling the entire world that the CPI has nothing to do with inflation, you sound like Lyndon LaRuche!

You say that the Constitution is not in need of interpretation and indesputable? Then what did the founders create the courts for? I repeat Don, no one has the franchise on the truth.

I do like some aspects of the libertarian beliefs. But the more I hear Libertarians speak and write, I pray to God they NEVER get to power.

 

[Cactus]

OK mattd, what Democrat won't the media report is running?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Everyone knows how I feel about Bush, so I won't bother to weigh in on this discussion, but I have to set the record straight on this from several posters:

Bush stood up to the UN

Bush brought a proposition to the UN, tried to bully, coerce, and bribe the Security Council into buying it, and then took his ball and went home when they refused. That's a far cry from "standing up" to the UN.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

The LP is the small tip of the iceburg, and in reality, if you believed what you say you believe, you'd be a libertarian as well.

I am a libertarian myself. I score 100% on their quiz -- assuming that national borders should be like state borders in the ideal world of free people, and that US drug policies are arbitrary (and should not be part of Federal law) -- otherwise coffee, chocolate, tobacco and beer would not be part of our lives.

I've voted for Libertarian candidates in the past, but I personally think my votes, arguments and volunteer efforts are better spent pushing the Republican party closer to the Constitution than working on the Libertarian Party - which I believe will splinter into nothingness with any hint of success.

I would love to be proven wrong, but I'm not going to sit through another 8 years of blatant erosion of ALL of our rights just because I voted my principals.

People are Libertarians BECAUSE they are steadfast in their principals -- that doesn't mix well with populist politics. It's a good thing we're a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. They more people understand the difference, the better off our country will be.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Malone,

I disagree. He asked for UN support, and did not get it. I didnt see anything to suggest bullying or coersion.

In the face of no support from the UN, though he went ahead with what he thought he should do. You might disagree with his decision, but at least he didn't ben to UN and worldwide opinion.

 

[greyhound]

He stood up to the UN and world opinion (for better or worse, but the fact is, no other major candidate would have even considered it).

This is exactly why I still might consider voting for him. Of course, I consider extracting ourselves from always following the UN mandate the main issue of the War On Terror (i.e we should still maintain our membership and try to work with them, but when push comes to shove, the UN does NOT determine US foreign policy).

In 50+ years, a majority of the US public has come to believe that UN blessing = a just cause. That may have been true up until the fall of the USSR, but since then its been UN = checking the "cowboy" US.

I may not agree with the war in Iraq, but at some point bucking the UN was the most important thing in US foreign policy, IMHO.

Problem is, there's no indication that this anything but a "one-off", especially when the Democrats get back in the White House (and let's face they will [any probably should, with hope that they will purge the leftists, to preserve the Republic]).

 

[CZ 75 BD]

WE have failed...

if a renewal of AWB even gets to the President.

 

[STONER]

SC_shooter,

Quote:

"If Bush does sign the AWB, I will be voting for the Democrat to send a message to the Republican leadership."

Why vote for a Democrat:banghead: Vote for one of the 3rd parties that you more closely agree with?

 

[Don Galt]

7.62--

Actually, I disagree. I see libertarianism is the pragmatic solution. Its clear that the alternatives have failed.

The constitution was supposed to protect the minority from the majority-- it has failed utterly.

I don't remember bringing up roads, but I am not proposing or seeing roads without rules.

I am not advocating chaos. At all.

I'm simply advocating a just society, and for justice, there must be a system of justice.

I'm not sure why you, and others, believe libertarians want to endorse chaos-- unless you see the only alterantive to tyranny being chaos. (To oversimplify.) And I don't think you do.

You cannot have justice when %51 of the people -- the ones who want authoritarianism-- are able to get it.

Working to make the republicans more libertarian is a noble goal--- frankly, I think that the republican party is going to go thru a difficult period and may well split into two groups-- the authoritarians and hte libertarians. The libertarian republicans would quickly merge with the libertarian party and gain a lot of power. This party might be called the "Libertarian" party or it might be called the "Republican" party.

But every year, more and more people get fed up with the republicans in their current form and some sort of a split, or change in focus will occur when merely saying that they want freedom and justice, while working in the opposite direcction, is not enough.

In another thread I argued that libertarianism is in a way, just another way of saying "capitalism". Capitalism has been tried for years and worked well. Communists would say "Capitalism fails because of the human factor"... but history says otherwise. Capitalism works because it takes the human factor into account.

Libertarianism is the same thing-- its really individualist capitalism.

As to elections, No election in the last 50 years has been legitimate. There ARE councils that control the elections that prevent people from running for office who are perfectly qualified and have a legal right to, under the constitution. All of our elections for at least 50 years have been unconstitutional. Yes, they DO exclude libertarian and other third party candidates from access.... and thus the libertarian party, for instance, must spend a lot of its time and energy just getting on the ballot, and that takes away from getting the message out.

This country is where it is now because the checks and balances in the constituion are being ignored. Libertarianism would increase the checks on tyrannical power by a couple orders of magnitude-- not with more laws, but with more liberty.

When you have a system that does not give a central authority authority over our lives, and restricts it to only its legitimate purposes, that central authority cannot by as tyrannical as the one we have now, where they can pass just about anything they want without it being checked-- either at election time (Because no viable alternatives are allowed on the ballot) or in the courts.

Stalin said something to the effect of "It does not matter who the people vote for, it matters who counts the votes." OR, who controls who is allowed to be on the ballot.

I am libertarian in large part because it is the only pragmatic solution to some people's desire for power over others. -- that I see anyway.

Convincing republicans that yes, less taxes, smaller federal government, and other libertarian ideas are a good idea is consistent with that.

The seemingly knee-jerk reaction that many republicans have-- that libertarianism is a pie in the sky idea-- makes me think they don't really understand it, or haven't investigated it. They are short of specific arguments in that regard, and usually just throw that out there without supporting it. Maybe you want to press the case in more detail with me, either in PM, or in another thread, or in this thread.

Don

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Good response. Thank you. Now you are getting close to home. We have two parties, one is so far left as to be embarrassing, and the "conservative" party has moved to where the social liberal party was in the 60's (ending with JFK).

We need to work within the constraints of the current system to expand choices and to break the most malleable party in two parts, if we must. There is a great deal of movement in that direction now. Witness the many comments afrom this board concerning the "If Bush does this, I will do that." And I do feel for this mentality in that we, the freedom lovers, are being abandoned to make a bigger tent.

BTW, I participated in the libertarian FEC suit with $. We need to open the field. But the LP must field a legitimate candidate. Harry Browne was OK, very bright and articulate, but very honest. Incrementalism. What is strong about the party? What sells? Bring them on one layer at a time. Start with republican light.

For example, Liberty Foundation ran some great commercials for gun rights. www.americanlibertyfoundation.com. They appealed to a great number of people. Self-relaince. End taxes as we know them. Sell federal lands to buyout and change social security (privatize). These are the things that people understand and can relate to.

However, when you also push drugs, "anywhere, anytime", conservative are going to worry on many levels. Open borders is going to cause aneurisms and strokes! Especially on the border states which deal with the influx. And that old self-reliance thing will resonate to a point. But you have to have a plan to remove all of these false securities piece-by-piece.

How do we get back to the liberty that the founding fathers envisioned? The same way we got here, one step at a time.

As socialism falters in Europe and it is no longer a platform for the socialist liberal party to embrace, and when people continue to see that the "security" that they are buying is REALLY expensive in both money and freedoms, then bigger steps can be taken.

Until then, fight the good fight. The country is snapping back to the center, and may continue rightward. And maybe northward on the graph.

I again thank you for the well reasoned response.

7.62FMJ