PDA

View Full Version : Libertarian article...


unlurking
10-15-2004, 02:20 PM
Yes this article rips Dems and Repubs, but I'm not posting it to incite or inflame anyone. This is directed more towards people like TJ who are undecided between a "non-viable" and a "lesser of two evils".

Morlocks vs. Libertarians

Michael Badnarik’s campaign manager – City Councilman Fred Collins of Berkley, Mich. – set achievable goals for the 2004 Libertarian presidential campaign. He tells me he figures that if he can raise a few million dollars for TV ads, and place them only in the swing states, he can poll a couple of percentage points for Badnarik and the Libertarians in those states – and cost George Bush the election.

But wouldn’t that be terrible? Wouldn’t that just deliver the country into the hands of big-spending liberal John Kerry and his trial-lawyer pals?

Oh, please. This is the old "not-a-nickel’s-worth-of-difference-between-’em" shell game reduced to its most absurd.

Yes, the foreign-policy deference of Mr. Kerry (and his collaborationist wing of the Democratic Party) to France and the U.N. is pathetic. Yes, left to their own devices (but there’s a substantial caveat, given the relentless inertial guidance systems of the Washington bureaucracy) the Kerry crew would probably accelerate job-destroying business and "environmental" regulation and freedom-destroying gun bans, while "taxing the rich" in ways unseen since Leningrad, 1921.

Whereas Mr. Bush – freed to be as bold as he likes by Republican control of both houses of Congress – had worked over the past four years to restore our limited, constitutional government ... how?

By setting the precedent that the New American Empire can and will invade and occupy any foreign country that he believes has "weapons of mass destruction"? (When do we go after Red China?)

By bragging in his campaign literature that he rammed through the "Patriot Act," aiming to give John Ashcroft (surely the most freedom-loving attorney general since Mitchell Palmer) the never-to-sunset power to snoop us without warrants and hold us without trial? By wasting $10 billion on "upgrades" that render the dignity-destroying airport search scam not a whit more effective than it proved on Sept. 11? (One Texas airport manager has compared the whole exercise to "putting a steel door on a grass hut.")

Have the Republicans even gotten around to keeping Ronald Reagan’s 1980 promise to close down the federal Departments of Energy and Education – let alone Agriculture, Health and Human Services?

Are they waiting till they control the White House and every seat in Congress? Do you really think they’d do it, even then?

Have they shut down the redistributionist Roosevelt-Johnson Ponzi schemes known as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Repealed the crushing slavery of the income tax? Repealed a single one of the thousands of unconstitutional federal infringements of the 2nd Amendment?

Just the opposite. Bush lied to Congress about the astronomical cost of his new "free drugs for seniors" handout – "browbeating Congress into enacting the biggest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society," reports Jim Bovard in his fine new book "The Bush Betrayal." He "signed the most exorbitant farm bill in history in 2002, bilking taxpayers for $180 billion to rain benefits on millionaire landowners and other deserving mendicants."

Bush actually has the nerve to say he’s fighting the War on Terror by further bloating the AmeriCorps "paid volunteer" program, under which "AmeriCorps members busy themselves putting on puppet shows to persuade three-year-olds of the value of smoke alarms." The No Child Left Behind Act? "Perhaps Bush’s biggest domestic fraud," Mr. Bovard says, leading "many states to ‘dumb down’ academic standards, using bureaucratic racketeering to avoid harsh federal sanctions."

Meantime, "Bush’s foreign policies are creating more terrorists than he is vanquishing," Mr. Bovard concludes.

"Conservatism is dead in America," warns Bill Bonner. "It makes little difference whether (Bush) wins or loses. Neither party plans to cut spending, though it is debt that threatens the republic far more than terrorism. Neither party can face up to the $44 trillion ‘funding gap’ in federal finances, nor to the current account deficit, nor to the challenge of low-wage competitors in Asia."

"America cannot continue to be the world’s only superpower, for Nature will not permit a monopoly for very long. And yet, no foreign nation is strong enough to offer a serious military challenge – at least not yet. So the U.S. of A. must ruin itself... and needs leadership that is up to the task. In Bush and Kerry, America seems to have found its Louis XVI... it’s Nicholas II, its Theodosius, Rome’s last emperor. In Bush and Kerry, America has found leaders worthy of a nation of happy hallucinators."

And why would these freedom-betraying Republicans ever change, unless freedom-loving Americans finally wise up and reward their betrayal with defeat?

LET’S LOOK AT ‘TAX REFORM’

Television ignored the tight and dramatic May 29 Libertarian national nominating convention, where Badnarik started out two votes behind brash Brooklyn film producer Aaron Russo on the first three-candidate ballot – winning the day in an actual live debate before the assembled delegates in which the candidates (hold onto your chairs) actually discussed the issues of the day!

Yet the same networks that ignored the dramatic and real Libertarian balloting moan about the "stage managed" conventions of the two interchangeable branches of the Incumbent Republicrat Party – their nominations pre-sealed like matching cans of Spam, offering about as much drama as the Central Committee sessions that used to routinely re-nominate Joseph Stalin for the premiership of the Soviet Union – and then they cover them as "real news," anyway.

The other parties of the right?

The Libertarian Party has been around longer than any of them – since 1972. So why didn’t these other "conservatives" simply join the Libertarians? The answer – hidden behind pejoratives like "inflexible doctrinaires" – is that the Libertarian Party is too principled.

Take "tax reform" – better dubbed "slavery reform."

Either I am the sole owner of my mind and body and the labor through which I use them to generate wealth, or I am not. If someone else has a prior claim on some portion of my labor, then I am a slave.

Whether I "only" have to work the first four months of the year to pay "my" taxes is irrelevant. If someone can enter your house without your permission and use a whip to drive you into the fields to harvest his crop, you are a slave. The fact that you remain "free" to gather round the campfire at night and sing a few spirituals is irrelevant to your underlying condition.

The only "reform" the slave cares about is the one that tells him, "You’re now free to go where you please, and sell your labor for whatever price you can get, and keep it all (or spend it) as you see fit."

Libertarians understand and (mostly) embrace this principle. Yes, some minarchist Libertarians would settle for getting us back to the indirect excises intended by the Founders of 1787 – arguing it’s a more achievable goal and would "sure be better than what we’ve got."

But at heart, any true Libertarian realizes that taxation is slavery.

Meantime, what of these other "conservatives" of the right? Their "tax reform" schemes reveal that all they really intend is to "improve the efficiencies of collection," in ways which are "revenue neutral" (not reducing Massa’s total cotton crop), shifting the well-funded levers of state power into new hands (theirs) – usually in order to "make this a Christian nation" by more rigorously arresting and imprisoning those who exercise their God-given freedom to engage in self-medication, birth control (yes, there were places in this country where they tried to jail people for distributing birth control information to married couples, less than 50 years ago), and/or fornication.

Yes, the urge is always there to bend and modify the principle of self-ownership, in order to seem more "mainstream" – more "reasonable." But unless you have actual principles, define them clearly, and stand by them in the face of all the sirens’ seductive cries, you will surely lose your way in the discount market for souls which constitutes modern American politics.

If you agree I own my body, how can you justify funding a police and court apparatus that seeks to jail me for deciding which plant extracts or vaccines I want to ingest (or not) in the privacy of my home, or who I invite to share my bed, or whether and how I choose to reproduce or school my children? Should I really prefer this new and improved form of police state, on the grounds it goes to church and wears bow ties and tweed jackets?

Come November, I and perhaps 2 percent of the populace will cast our lonely votes for Michael Badnarik, a come-from behind Cinderella Libertarian candidate who – if he had his way – would end the insane war on drugs; end the income tax; restore our God-given and constitutionally guaranteed firearms rights; protect the rights of all Americans to medical privacy; end the noxious daily trampling of our Bill of Rights in the nation’s airports; pull us out of the deadly, illegal, and unconstitutional war in Iraq (and less dramatic ongoing "wars" of occupation in 135 other purportedly sovereign nations), and put the U.S. military back to work tracking down the real culprits of Sept. 11.

"At which point, if we can find them, you think it would be OK to just kill them?" I asked the candidate.

"Sure," Mr. Badnarik replied.

Sounds about right to me.

I will cast that vote on Nov. 2, and get my ass whupped (politically speaking), and go to bed proud and justified.

Whereas 95 percent of Americans (they must start to feel like the Eloi, shuffling in to the sound of the Morlocks’ dinner bell in H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine) will vote for one of two interchangeable Skull & Bonesmen without any discernible political principles, who (no matter which wins) will proceed to raise our (net) taxes, take away more of our freedoms, and continue frittering away whatever remains of America’s reputation for decency by continuing the violent military occupation of scores of foreign countries that have never attacked or declared war upon us.

All because Americans don’t want to "throw away their vote" – and register their disapproval with that state of affairs – by voting for a guy who would make them feel decent and clean, but who will almost certainly lose.

And that gets us down to the final point.

‘THROWING AWAY YOUR VOTE’

A close election might conceivably be decided by one vote in the Electoral College, or in the Congress. But it will not be decided – no presidential election has ever been decided, nationally or even in a single "battleground" state – by a single popular vote.

Therefore, statistically, your individual vote already "doesn’t count." If you died on your way to the polls, it could not possibly affect who gets elected president. Get over it. And if you don’t live in Ohio or Florida or Nevada or one of the other dozen or so "battleground" states, your whole state has already been "assigned" to the red or blue column, your entire state doesn’t count – you could convince a thousand friends to write in Ron Paul or Mahatma Gandhi; no one would even notice.

Yet people keep telling me that unless they vote for Bush or Kerry for Tweedle-Dumb or Tweedle-Brie – their "vote won’t count"?

Pretend with me that you’re an old German on your deathbed today. Would you rather tell your grandchildren, "I voted for the Nazis because they seemed better than the Communists and no other party could win"? Wouldn’t you rather be able to rise up and say, "I publicly denounced the Nazis and the Communists. We were a minority – 1 or 2 percent – but we stood up for the truth and we were right! We proved not all Germans were mindless torchbearers for tyranny! We were ridiculed, we were beaten and jailed, but we saved this nation’s soul. Now children, go and live your lives in a way to make me proud"?

Wouldn’t you?

Because I don’t get it: Let’s say you flip a coin and manage to vote for "the winner," on Nov. 2.

What do you win?

Hydrae
10-15-2004, 02:44 PM
Interesting read. I think it went a little overboard in saying that all taxes are equivalent to slavery. Now income taxes I will agree are wrong (not to mention unConstitutional provided you ignore the 16th amendment :D) but some form of taxation is needed to provide necessary services like roads, fire, police and military.

Still planning to vote Kerry but I think I will vote for any and all other Libertarians on the ballot.

Taco John
10-15-2004, 02:55 PM
It rings pretty hollow to libertarians for Bush supporters to call John Kerry a big-spending liberal when Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill, and has in fact risen government spending to levels that this nation has never seen before.

It's like Michael Jackson calling Pee Wee Herman a pedophile.

unlurking
10-15-2004, 03:08 PM
Interesting read. I think it went a little overboard in saying that all taxes are equivalent to slavery. Now income taxes I will agree are wrong (not to mention unConstitutional provided you ignore the 16th amendment :D) but some form of taxation is needed to provide necessary services like roads, fire, police and military.

Still planning to vote Kerry but I think I will vote for any and all other Libertarians on the ballot.
Yes it does seem to go overboard a bit, but in some regards I find that the Libertarians seem rather "extreme" in some ways. Whether or not I agree with "how far" to go on these issues, I do agree it is the right direction at least.

unlurking
10-15-2004, 03:09 PM
It rings pretty hollow to libertarians for Bush supporters to call John Kerry a big-spending liberal when Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill, and has in fact risen government spending to levels that this nation has never seen before.

It's like Michael Jackson calling Pee Wee Herman a pedophile.
I'm not really sure I understand your point. The article was written by a Libertarian promoting the vote for Badnarik and not Kerry just because you don't want Bush in office.

HC_Chief
10-15-2004, 03:22 PM
It rings pretty hollow to libertarians for Bush supporters to call John Kerry a big-spending liberal when Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill, and has in fact risen government spending to levels that this nation has never seen before.

It's like Michael Jackson calling Pee Wee Herman a pedophile.

Pee Wee Herman has been accused of pedophelia?

Bush's out of control spending (outside of the WoT) would most certainly have prompted my vote to go elsewhere if not for the empty suit the Dems propped-up this year.

I will not vote for Badnarick because I have a strong disagreement with him on his stance on the war in Iraq. I do not see it as unjustified, nor 'illegal'... anyone who does so is ignorant of the realities of US/UN/Iraqi relations; or worse: intentionally lying to themselves & others.

Ultra Peanut
10-15-2004, 03:38 PM
It rings pretty hollow to libertarians for Bush supporters to call John Kerry a big-spending liberal when Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill, and has in fact risen government spending to levels that this nation has never seen before.

It's like Michael Jackson calling Pee Wee Herman a pedophile.Next time, read the article.

Whereas Mr. Bush – freed to be as bold as he likes by Republican control of both houses of Congress – had worked over the past four years to restore our limited, constitutional government ... how?

unlurking
10-15-2004, 03:43 PM
Pee Wee Herman has been accused of pedophelia?

Bush's out of control spending (outside of the WoT) would most certainly have prompted my vote to go elsewhere if not for the empty suit the Dems propped-up this year.

I will not vote for Badnarick because I have a strong disagreement with him on his stance on the war in Iraq. I do not see it as unjustified, nor 'illegal'... anyone who does so is ignorant of the realities of US/UN/Iraqi relations; or worse: intentionally lying to themselves & others.
Whether not I agree with your opinion on the war, the "vote your conscience" was the point of the article. This was really just meant as an opposing argument to those who would vote for someone other than Kerry or Bush but feel their vote would be wasted that way.

But, thanks for calling me ignorant and/or a liar. ;)

Taco John
10-15-2004, 05:36 PM
I'm not really sure I understand your point. The article was written by a Libertarian promoting the vote for Badnarik and not Kerry just because you don't want Bush in office.



I'm just making the comment on why Libertarians are finding it easy to plug their noses and vote for Kerry..

It was a very good article, and the last example made me thing a great deal. I think it's a bit much to compare the Democrats and Republicans with communists and Nazi's, but that's the way that the parties want to compare eachother, so it's not entirely unfair.

Taco John
10-15-2004, 06:06 PM
Pee Wee Herman has been accused of pedophelia?

Yeah. He got busted with a bunch of "art" (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4653913/) that featured little kids.



Bush's out of control spending (outside of the WoT) would most certainly have prompted my vote to go elsewhere if not for the empty suit the Dems propped-up this year.


I think that's a fair argument in itself. However, between the two, I find Kerry has more upside.


I will not vote for Badnarick because I have a strong disagreement with him on his stance on the war in Iraq. I do not see it as unjustified, nor 'illegal'... anyone who does so is ignorant of the realities of US/UN/Iraqi relations; or worse: intentionally lying to themselves & others.


I agree with Badnarik to an extent. I think we did a poor job justifying this war. Considering that there were no WMDs found, which was the justification that was given that most American's bought into, I think that a strong case is made for "unjustified" and "illegal."

I think there is more to this war than meets the eye. I don't think it's merely about oil, and I don't think that it's really about WMDs. I think it's about land. Certainly, that's what the civil war that breaks out will be about.

I don't believe that we are going to secure Iraq. I do believe that a true international coalition would have had a better time doing so. I do believe that Bush made a grave error that will cost the US thousands more lives because he listened to Rumsfeld instead of Powell. I do believe that if we have went in with overwhelming force and secured the public infrastructure, Iraqis at large would be a lot more trusting of us and convinced that our intentions there were anything but impure.

We didnt' do it like that. We went in with a small coalition that put the largest burden on us, and therefore we went in with the idea that we'd cut as many costs as we could. We went in with a small strike force that was good enough to protect the US interests in Iraq, but too small to protect the Iraqi citizens from the chaos that broke out. We went in with complete disregard for the message that was going to be put out in Arab media. In other words, Bush hasn't run a very thoughtful war. Of course, every two bit spinner here is ready to jump on me and throw us the term "sensitive war" while raping the context and meaning of what I just said here. So be it. Context raping isn't going to bring back a single iraqi kid who got killed. Context raping isn't going to grow back blown off legs on a soldier coming home to meet his family a different man.

Abu Grhaib is an icon of the kind of war Bush runs: A slack and thoughtless war that doesn't ask about the consequences of our actions.

I would have never gone into this war without the full support of NATO Allies. Unless, of course, I had one thing: the intelligence that could lead me directly to the nuclear weapons and WMD stockpiles that were the cause for the war.

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq? Hell if I know. It didn't change my life one bit. I guess the people to ask would be Iraqis considering they are the ones who have to live with the consequences. I think the jury is still out on that one.

Which leads me to my final point. Libertarians believe that big government is the biggest polluter and problem causer in existence. By nature of it's enormous size and influence, the US Government is the largest culprit. George Bush has done nothing but grow it and weild it like a little kid with a light saber. Reckless and without regard (Not even for the American people).

This war is not about the security of America, as it's advertised. There isn't a case that has been presented yet that can stand up to the test to make it so... No WMDs. No 45-minute capability. None of it. America would be more secure if our troops were in our homeland protecting our borders, and no matter how you attempt to spin it, Occams razor will make this simple statement superior to whatever you can present.