Libertarian direction

Despite rhetoric to the contrary by the major parties the one thing they agree upon is bigger government. I do believe that it was Bill Clinton who said the era of  big government is dead. We all heard through the 80’s that Regan ruthlessly slashed the budget, but I don’t remember any budget getting smaller, nor any government department doing with less.

Republicans and Democrats may not agree on the whys, wheres, and hows, but they each have elements of their agenda that lead to big government. Republicans will increase the policestate to protect us from terrorists, illegal aliens, drug dealers and other criminal elements. Democrats will increase the policestate to protect select groups from the “majority” and from the policestate itself. This is but one example, but every compromise always leads to bigger government you just never know how big or which department. The big hitters of talk radio decry the incrementalism, but keep telling you to vote for a candidate that will increase government.

I have spent the past week or so looking at blogs, forums and message boards dealing with libertarian issues. We are a philosophical bunch, aren’t we, but do we have enough pragmatists? While the rest of the political spectrum feeds the bureaucratic obesity, libertarians debate how big should government be, while anarchists scoff at the posers. Some are scarred enough to vote for the smaller big government (Which may be Obama or Mc Cain depending on what scares you), while others cry that Bob Barr is not Libertarian enough to be voted for and will not vote for him.

Why can’t we all agree that the government gravy train needs to be stopped and turned around. Once things are turned around, can we not then debate where exactly the train stops? Libertarians seem very long in discussion of the ideal end product, but put very little thought into “how do you get there.” How do we get consensus on turning things around?

Samantha

Mark,

No you're an optimist probably. Cap and trade which is favored by both major candidates will flatten GDP. Obama who is the favored to win at the moment has several 100billion in new programs to initiate will increase the debt.

The big question is what happens when they intersect 8 or 20 years from now? The politicians won't quit that is for sure. Who is capable of foreclosing on the Federal government?

Since we do not advocate the initiation of force to do anything about this, How do we rally people to stop it?

Samantha

I would like to see this question explored, perhaps in another thread (since this thread is about moving things in a Libertarian Direction.) I believe the collapse of our currency is closer then people realize.  A good start may be for the government to just freeze the money supply and the growth of the currency supply.  That alone would have dramatic positive and negative effects on our country.

Regarding turning things around, I'm in your camp.  The tactics this party has employed for 35 plus years have had minimal success.  We need to change tactics if we are ever going to have a role in salvaging the mess we find ourselves in.  We need the public to look to us as the go to people for solutions.  It is possible that the philosophers had to much influence in the party.  We need people who understand politics who can chart a course forward.

David Jahn

Reagan nearly eliminated the Department of Education.




Libertarians, and other third party types, have a tendency toward "all or nothing" voting.

I see two different questions in the content of this
posting:

1) How do you get all libertarians to support libertarian
candidates?
(This includes getting purists to support less-than-purists
and pragmatists to support the libertarian and not the
lesser of two evils.)

2) How do you turn the nation in a more libertarian
direction?
(This must recognize that both major parties have been
non-stop advocates for bigger government.  They only
disagree on what parts to enlarge first and on what
individual rights to trample on first.)

Let me address the second question.  People tend to make
excuses about important things until it's crisis time.  In
my opinion, the crisis just over the horizon is economic -
not gay marriage, the drug war, animal rights, or even
abortion.  When that hits, however, big government will be
at its most vulnerable and most dangerous.

Our best tactic might be to get way out front and warn of
the impending economic disaster, explain how big government
caused it, recommend libertarian solutions to reduce the
impact and note how libertarian ideas would have avoided it
altogether if we stuck to them.

Thus, I'm suggesting that we adopt at both state and federal
levels a single theme.

Comments?

Mark

PS -- I consider the energy situation the result of the same
policies that are causing our economic crisis.  Energy is
just one more dead "canary in the mine" warning us.  At
least that's the way I see it.

PPS - Let's save Dave's idea for an "economic" thread for
another time.
 

Just in closing, ask 50 high schoolers what form of government we are and you will get "Democratic" though that word is neither in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Dec. of Independence. 

This is why I know the Democrats pander to the uneducated and ignorant.  Not stupid, just ignorant of the truth. 

No, nice people share.  Governments are not nice people.  They STEAL.  This is the part we don't get any clue about in our schools or mass media.  I have no problem with children being taught to share, whether it's school, church groups, sports teams, or among their friends and siblings.  Children are inherently selfish unless taught to be otherwise -- and they should be taught otherwise.

Where we fail them is that we take the act of goodness, kindness, or charity away from individuals by having the State STEAL from individuals to be doled out by the State's benevolent bureaucracy.

People should be taught to share.  Sharing is much more meaningful AND effective when WE do the sharing.  When something is TAKEN from us by force, it is no longer sharing, because it is not voluntary.

Forced "sharing" is what I am referring.   Of course we should be encouraged to share, it is the right thing to do.  Just not forced, like kids are forced to share their school supplies when they start school...usually the first day.