Libertarianism's topics - tribe.net

Libertarianism is the First Refuge of Yahoos

2009-12-22T19:13:21Z

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorchen/libertarianism-is-the-fir_b_43241.html

The best part, and indeed the most accurate description EVER, of Libertarianism:

"Buying is an aspect of the Holy Trinity of libertarianism, after all, the other two being Selling and Owning. All those European Jews in the 30s who didn't invest in Mercedes, Shell Oil, Ford Motor Company, etc, could have become millionaires by helping the Nazi regime. The fools! They missed out sharing in the great wealth created by the concentration camp system, all because of their political correctness. They could have been exterminated as shareholders in a profit-making enterprise, instead of as paupers. That's why the Jews will always lose out to the anti-Semites - they refuse to share in the wealth created by anti-Semitism. They're just cutting off their noses to spite the master race.

It's the same reason environmentalists are losers. If they invested in companies that poison the water and air, they'd make a lot of money. But no, they care more about their misguided principles and their not-yet-profitable alternative energy sources than they do about corporate profits. That's why, in the grand scheme of things, people who give a shit about anything but ownership and profit will ultimately be left out in the cold. Assuming there's any cold part of the world to be left out in. But of course, global warming is a fraudulent idea manufactured by those same anti-corporate losers. Ha ha! Let's laugh at them! Whining losers!

These pro-corporate bad boys, they know how to win: you don't bite the hand that spreads butter on your bread. Libertarianism is the best of both worlds - you can be a cutting-edge bad boy without having to say or do anything particularly dangerous, like criticizing your overlords. Courage means nothing, after all, if you don't make money from it. So why have any? "

posted in Libertarianism - 66 replies

Libertarians are well known for their temper tantrums

2009-12-14T12:19:05Z

Try and question their beliefs and see what they do.
It's fun to watch.

posted in Libertarianism - 11 replies

1.0 Personal Liberty

2009-12-14T12:09:18Z

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.

No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

posted in Libertarianism - 8 replies

Libertarianism is a fantasy that can never be achieved

2009-12-13T18:14:54Z

Name me one country in the world that practices laissez-faire capitalism.

posted in Libertarianism - 2 replies

How to get rid of republicans

2009-12-13T06:40:21Z

Take over the party.

============

County GOP sees influx of Paul backers
Some Republicans fear support for presidential hopeful stymies party goals

SAM TAYLOR
THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

E-mail | Print |
Digg it del.icio.us AIM
comments (29)
Map This*Beta
In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Ron Paul isn’t considered a front-runner. He’s not really considered a second-, third- or fourth-runner, either.

But the Republican congressman from Texas has a grassroots campaign that is scaring some members of the Whatcom County Republican Party who are seeing an influx of young, college-age Paul supporters coming to meetings to stump for their candidate.

Many Republicans are having a hard time seeing Paul as a Republican candidate, because of his many Libertarian, or what some are referring to as “Constitutionalist,” stances on issues. He also once sought the White House as a Libertarian.

In other years, it might not matter that Paul supporters are coming to meetings, said Chet Dow, Whatcom GOP chairman.

This year Republicans can’t coalesce on a favorite candidate, Dow said, and Paul isn’t even close to the top of the list.

“It’s wide open,” Dow said, which is what could give Paul more local delegates. “There hasn’t been anything like this since 1964.”

That was when a divided Republican Party selected Barry Goldwater to run against incumbent Democrat Lynden Johnson, who smashed Goldwater in the race.

The influx of Paul supporters is being seen by every county GOP group, Dow said, after a recent statewide event he attended.

County GOP Central Committeeman John Robinson is even more concerned about local Paul supporters and Paul’s candidacy.

“In my opinion he’s a Trojan horse,” Robinson said. “He’s a (Republican in name only). That’s how I feel about that, and I’ll be upfront about it and I don’t care.”

During a recent GOP meeting, about 10 Paul supporters — nearly all college-age — stumped for Paul and offered their services as precinct committee members.

“Some weren’t even registered to vote,” Robinson said.

Justin McKay, a former Whatcom County Republican Party member now supporting Paul, said the Paul supporters at the meetings are no different from any other Republican candidate’s supporters stumping for their guy at the meetings. And Paul has many conservative stances, he said.

He also sees a benefit to college-age voters attending the meetings to learn about the process.

“I think it’s a good, healthy thing,” he said.

Robinson said he has no problem with grassroots campaigns, but for him Paul does not represent Republican values. And in many years, he said, not many Republicans come to the local caucuses, which means Paul supporters might be able to take over and send more delegates in favor of Paul to the state convention.

“That should be a red alert to regular Republicans,” Robinson said. “If you don’t want your party taken over, you better get involved.”

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/264599.html

posted in Libertarianism - 2 replies

A ban on divorce?

2009-12-01T06:19:22Z

Whether this current movement in California is satirical or serious, I have to say that such prohibitions are not P.E., and are likely headed for failure.

Marriage is not the rightful business of Government, neither is Divorce.

Whether people want to stay married for thirty minutes (or less) or for thirty years (or more), the decision is up to the people that are involved.

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

The real meaning of Thanksgiving is a lesson in free markets

2009-12-01T06:11:26Z

"The Great Thanksgiving Hoax"
By Richard J. Maybury
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=336

Excerpt:

Each year at this time school children all over
America are taught the official Thanksgiving story,
and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote
vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very
colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is
nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale,
a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths
which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real
meaning.

posted in Libertarianism - 6 replies

Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart

2009-11-27T21:46:44Z

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

I think I'm gonna puke...

posted in Libertarianism - 3 replies

Local Meetings for California

2009-11-27T06:01:41Z

Contra Costa County: Second Tuesday of each month, Round Table Pizza, 3637 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Lafayette, CA

Alameda County: Second Thursday of each month, Pyzano's Pizzeria, 3835 E Castro Valley Blvd., Castro Valley, CA

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

New moderator

2009-11-19T14:46:31Z

I'll volunteer for the job if no one else wants it. But please do make a nomination or two here so we can select a replacement for the absentee mod.

posted in Libertarianism - 28 replies

attempting to grope a passenger is almost enough to get a BART employee fired

2009-11-05T04:08:01Z

almost...

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_13715915?source=rss

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Legalize Hemp and Cannabis in California

2009-09-14T05:35:18Z

Hi Libertarians,

Ending the drug war has long been a core part of the Libertarian platform. Now it's time to start making it happen.

Right now there are two competing signature drives to put Cannabis legalization initiatives on the ballot in California in November 2010.

One is found at www.taxcannabis2010.org

The other is found at www.CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org

Please look carefully at the text of both laws (the text of each is finalized) and make up your own mind which one you support.

I am supporting www.CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org because our law will protect Cannabis users from discrimination in healthcare, employment, and housing. It is a full legalization measure for industrial hemp and recreational cannabis which will restore full human rights to Hemp farmers and Cannabis users all across California. Of course supplying Cannabis to children will remain illegal just as it is today. Driving vehicles under the influence will remain illegal just as it is today. Cannabis users will still be fired from their jobs if they show up to work impaired.

There are two parts to our plan. The first part is to publicly post and personally distribute our "Freedom Lover's Call to Arms" in order to recruit volunteers. This document is available here-

www.imgur.com/dbU83

The second part of our plan is to ask everyone who volunteers to make a pledge for how many signatures they can collect in the next 30 days or so. 15-30 signatures is a good number. If enough volunteers show this level of commitment we can succeed. You can probably get that number from your family members, friends, co-workers, and neighbors without having to solicit in public too much. This is an "out of the closet" movement. We will have to proudly advocate human rights for responsible, honest, hard-working Cannabis smokers in order to convince legitimate people to support us. I can supply stickers equivalent to each persons pledge number. These stickers can be used to generate interest and be given to voters who sign the petition. Here is the sticker design-

www.imgur.com/2cjvb

Feel free to distribute and use these images. Just don't copyright them.

We have 145 days in order to get the number of signatures that we need. Our petition is hot off the press on 9/11 and we have started collecting the first signatures yesterday 9/12.

We are polling 56% public support for Cannabis legalization in California which menas that this is an initiative which is not doomed. Its time has finally arrived; we are at the tipping point right now. Now is the time to do this and to do it right. We may only get one chance. If a law which is not exactly what we want is implemented then we may lose our critical mass and our ability to set it right.

I believe that less adults will smoke cannabis after it is legal. This is the case in the Netherlands where it has been available over-the-counter for 30 years yet only half as many citizens (percentage-wise) smoke as do citizens here. My economics professor has taught for years that prohibition has not succeeded in decreasing usage by increasing penalties. Instead it has destroyed lives and families without substantial benefit to society. After legalization hard-drug usage will decrease due to a "separation of the markets," a decline in the price of Cannabis relative to hard-drugs, and the restoration of honesty and common sense in drug education. Violence, thievery, and the incarceration of honest people will decrease as well. I also believe that a well regulated market will decrease the availability and appeal of cannabis to children. In fact teenage Cannabis use in California has fallen steadily since the passage of Proposition 215. Furthermore the adults who smoke Cannabis after legalization will be better able appreciate the majesty of nature in peace and unity without learning to fear and disrespect authority figures. This will be better for their spirits and better for society. Finally the human rights of legitimate medical Cannabis patients will be better protected than they are today. Legalizing Cannabis will create a safer, healthier, and more humane California for us all to live in.

If you want to help us in any way please contact the CCI campaign at www.CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org or write me at deep_space_underground@yahoo.com I give you my encouragement to modify this message if necessary and distribute it to anyone who might help on any forum or by any mechanism.

Love,
-Fully Committed

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Sidis

2009-08-20T13:55:19Z

Cross-posted:

From the newsletter of uber-genius William James Sidis 1938 (written by 10 year old high school girl):

Mr. Roosevelt is my shepherd.
I live in want.
He maketh me to lie down on park benches.
He leadeth me beside still factories.
He leadeth me into the paths of destruction for his party's sake.
Yes, though I walk through the valley of the Depression,
I anticipate no recovery, for he is with me.
He annointeth my small income with taxes.
My expenses runneth over.
Surely unemployment and poverty shall follow we all the days of my life,
And I shall dwell in a mortgaged house forever.
What a man!

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Jailed Liberty Activists

2009-02-01T21:28:25Z

Hi. A lot of Liberty happenings and groups in New Hampshire where activists are confronting the system's victimless laws daily.

The latest ... Liberty activists in New Hampshire have started some websites for Liberty activist to keep informed and support jailed activists.
http://jailedactivist.info/
http://www.mail-to-jail.com/

If you know of any liberty activist or would like to support those struggling towards freedom more details, forums and links can be found at www.NHFree.com or listen to www.freetalklive.com

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Bob Barr

2008-08-30T04:45:53Z

How many are happy with Bob?

posted in Libertarianism - 10 replies

Amicus Curiae

2008-06-30T20:55:45Z

The Libertarian Party was the only party to submit an Amicus Curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in the Heller case.

It appears that the Republican and Democrat parties aren't interested in supporting people's rights. Ok, no great surprise there.

Thanks to Bob Barr.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuLibertarianNtlCmtt.pdf

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Conspiracy History compilation DVDs torrents

2008-03-06T14:57:58Z

**************************************************

Greetings to all my relations.

This is the last step of our project History Watch. If History is
defined and known by the texts, we can now add to this definition the
recorded events of the filmed archives. Animated images are harder to
deny than printed words. Our objective is to spread out freely some of
the little broadcast, even hidden informations about our collective
History.

We put online a collection of 391 documentaries and other selected and
recut videos, to offer to a wide public the best of the infos
available on the net in english and in french. If you are interested,
you have the time, the right equipment and connection, all you have to
do is open the joint document and decompress it if needed (but normaly
your system should do it automaticaly). You'll find therein nine links
that will open the torrents for the nine DVDs we compiled (around 4.6
Gig each, for a total of a little over 41 G, being over 100 hours of
videos).

Otherwise, you can go directly to btjunkie.com and search for these titles.

11 Septembre 2001 - 9-11
Bush family & friends
Capitalist & Communist regimes
Capitalist conspiracy
Mind Kontrol - Secret Programs
New World Order - Secret Societies
Secret services - cover up - covert ops
Secret weapons - UFO
Terrorism Theories propaganda

Torrents are a system of peer to peer data transfer. The more people
download a torrent, the faster it spreads and the longer it stays on
the net. If you don't have a bittorrent software, we suggest that you
download uTorrent on utorrent.com. If you want to participate in
facilitating the diffusion of these infos about our collective
History, download these torrents on as many computers as possible,
whether it is in cybercafes. It takes one or two minutes to open up
the links and the downloading will keep proceeding on its own.

Please spread this out, take part in this action for social education
on a planetary scale. Thanks.

For more info: watch.history@gmail.com History Watch

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Rudy Giuliani: "Freedom is About Authority"

2007-12-27T06:35:48Z

I'm pretty sure Giuliani is satan incarnate.

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260

posted in Libertarianism - 5 replies

Welcome to the Revolution

2007-12-25T23:23:01Z

"We the People are the "wild card" in the deck of chaos that is waiting to be played. Our unnamed rights and how we will choose to defend them is the one "known unknown," that cannot be completely controlled by any authority. If we believe that our family's self-defense demands that we choose to form our own "militias" here in the United States, as a last resort to losing our Constitutional rights, then that is what we shall do, refusing to "go silently into the night." The Second Amendment guarantees us the right and the means to self-defense, against ANY attacker....."

http://www.rense.com/general79/revo.htm

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Lakota Freedom: Treaty Withdrawal For Elders and Children

2007-12-25T21:06:50Z

MEDIA ADVISORY
Immediate Release: 24 December 2007

Media Contacts:
Naomi Archer, Communications Liaison (828) 230-1404 lakotafree [at] gmail.com

Lakota Freedom: Treaty Withdrawal For Elders and Children

Sovereignty Action Sparks World Discussion, Disagreement, Inspiration

Lakota - What began as sparsely attended press conference announcing Lakota sovereignty has grown into an international roar of freedom inspiring people on every continent and sparking excitement and discussion in homes, tribal councils, schools, and on internet blogs and message boards. Across Indian Country in particular, the impact of the sovereign action is creating both inspiration and concern as the reality of freedom sinks in.

But mixed with the excitement and joy are concerns the Lakota people's needs will not be fully met, especially needs and concerns of the youth.

Lakota Freedom delegate and Oglala Lakota Cante Tenza - Strongheart Warrior Society leader Canupa Gluha Mani (Duane Martin Sr.) issued the following statement after discussion with the Strongheart Grandmothers:

"The whole Lakota declaration of withdrawal from the treaty is vested on the power of the Lakota people and our children.

When we undertook the process of announcing the withdrawal, the capacity was far greater than most people anticipated about an individual. But throughout our history, the people have never excluded anyone within their own lifeway and when it becomes a listener's view that its about one individual, one individual does not represent the nation itself, the nation represents the individual, and that is Lakota.

The withdrawal is for the people, the Elders, mothers, fathers, and the children.

Throughout our history and through the enforcement of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Congress said they would oversee the provisions of 1868 (Fort Laramie Treaty), but they failed to do so. Some minor provisions were kept, but overall the treaty was not honored. Because if the treaty was honored, we would not have this colonial catastrophe of alcoholism, drug abuse and poverty and we wouldn't have the overall high incarceration rate of the male and female in the prison populations. This leads to our children being taking away by Social Services which puts our children out of balance from learning the traditional lifeway.

When the children can reconnect with who they are, they come back to the process of knowing what is Lakota in the true point of view. In this true point of view Lakota is about being free and left alone, so we can govern and save our own with the teachings of the Animal Nations.

If we can conclude with this statement in the positive venue, its not about Russell Means, and certainly not about Canupa Gluha Mani or any individual, this about the Lakota Nation and the Animal People who are no longer alone."

We are the freedom loving Lakota from the Sioux Indian reservations of Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana who have withdrawn from the constitutionally mandated treaties to become a free and independent country. We are alerting the Family of Nations we have now reassumed our freedom and independence with the backing of Natural, International, and United States law. For more information, please visit our new website at www.lakotafreedom.com.

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Lakota Declare Independance/ Tax Free State

2007-12-24T21:38:05Z

Native American Lakota Tribe Establish their Own Country

The Lakota native Americans, the tribe where Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are from, have withdrawn from the 150-yr-old treaties between them and the United States.

The Newly established country which will include parts of the states of Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas welcomes anyone who wants to deny their U.S. citizenship. The country plans to be tax-free for residents.

The article states that the move is totally legal, citing that there are 33 treaties, which according to article 6 of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, which the U.S. have not honored.

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

Three Cheers for Liberation!

posted in Libertarianism - 8 replies

Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta ($27.5 Trillion Man) Libertarian / Lakota Sioux ?

2007-12-24T21:35:59Z

Confidential sources have confirmed that the $27.5 Trillion Man, Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta, has expressed interest in the viability of a third party system (Independent / Libertarian) and the Presidential candidacy of Ron Paul (Congressman - Texas).

A hero of the Cold War, the Ambassador was in charge of a covert financial warfare operation ordered by Pres Reagan which led to the collapse of the Soviet currency and banking. By the early 1990's as Trustee of Ameritrust Group, Inc, the Ambassador amassed $27.5 trillion in assets.

"Under Reagan's Executive Order 12333 of 1981, US intelligence officers were permitted to establish corporations which could thereafter contract with the CIA/DIA/DEA/NSA et al for the purpose of fulfilling allotted intelligence tasks allocated to them.The financial proceeds of operations conducted by such corporations were consequently the property of the corporations and thus of their shareholders, a legal fact of life which has never been, and cannot be, disputed. This was not a good idea because almost all US intelligence operatives are liars and do not function on the basis of the Rule of Law at all, if they can help it.

Lee Wanta is the well-known patriotic exception to this rule: he operates solely in accordance with US law, in contrast to the behaviour of other US operatives, which is why the kakocracy* needed to remove him from the scene, as duly occurred July 1993.Once Wanta had been illegally arrested (contrary to international law, as a diplomat) and then thrown into a stinking Swiss jail on 7th July 1993, the criminal cadres inside the US official structures immediately ransacked Mr Wanta's bank accounts according to plan..."
http://www.worldreports.org/news/107_warring_israeli_intel_threatens_rubin_with_death

Confidential sources have also confirmed that the Ambassador has expressed interest in a proposed "tax free" Sovereign Lakota Sioux Nation covering a 5 State region where he might invest his $4.5 trillion settlement. www.lakotafreedom.com/

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Ron Paul - A True Conservative!

2007-12-16T21:00:33Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIivoqLbeeg

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

2008

2007-10-30T01:45:45Z

How many here will be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries (meaning some of you will have to register as republicans)?

How many will vote for him IF he wins the nomination?

How many will vote LP ticket even if RP gets the nomination?

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

Ron Paul Bashing

2007-10-24T10:19:02Z

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007/06/06/Opinion/Ron-Pauls.Many.Faces-2912151.shtml

I love this article - Several of the things they say about Ron Paul are meant to make him look bad - but are actually reasons I like him!

posted in Libertarianism - 3 replies

Hillary Clinton is a 'Libertarian Turncoat.'

2007-06-13T20:46:31Z

Clipped from a different thread:

"You dweebs cheer when work leaves the country and goes to Asia."

No, I don't. It makes me sad. I respect that the future doesn't look bright for this Society if we forget how to make things.

Now I see in the news that Hillary Clinton feels almost exactly the same way:

"If we don't have a strong manufacturing base in our economy, it won't be long until we don't have a strong economy," the Democratic presidential candidate said.

It's hard to believe she would agree with me.

posted in Libertarianism - 10 replies

Why America rejects Libertarianism

2007-06-10T06:48:41Z

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/NoLibert.HTM

Why I am not a Libertarian
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here.

Libertarians tend to be regarded in the popular media as a sort of conservative movement. In fact, they espouse a mix of "conservative" and "liberal" ideas. Many of their ideas appeal to liberals:

* End to prohibitions on drug use
* End to prohibitions on pornography and sexual conduct
* End to foreign intervention and military conscription
* The repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide
* Opposition to involuntary commitment or treatment in a mental institution.

Other libertarian ideas sound more conservative:

* Free market ownership of airwave frequencies
* End to the taxation of privately owned real property
* Opposition to all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating, or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer, or sale of firearms or ammunition.
* Opposition to all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition.
* The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate (essentially advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation).
* Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference.
* Abolition of welfare
* Dramatic reductions in both taxes and government spending
* An end to deficit budgets

Overall, their stance on personal freedoms is "liberal," their stance on government spending and regulation is "conservative." In short, they combine the personal irresponsibility of liberals with the social, economic and environmental irresponsibility of conservatives.
Some Libertarian Positions

The following quotes are taken directly from the libertarian party platform.
I.9.Government and Mental Health

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated. We also oppose forced treatment for the elderly, the head-injured, or those with diminished capacity.

If there is any area where the libertarian platform has been achieved, here it is. Beginning in the 1970's a coalition of liberals and conservatives virtually eliminated involuntary mental treatment. Liberals felt that involuntary treatment was a violation of the patients' civil rights, that patients were being warehoused in institutions, and that society needed to be "confronted" with mental illness by having the mentally ill in the midst of society. Conservatives had much purer motives: they simply wanted to save money. Most of the homeless persons we see sleeping in doorways, and every mentally ill person we see ranting on a street corner, is a product of de-institutionalization.

You have to wonder why libertarians aren't touting their greatest success more.
I.10.Freedom of Communication

We favor the abolition of the Federal Communications Commission as we would provide for free market ownership of airwave frequencies, deserving of full First Amendment protection.

Okay, now how are we going to keep track of who owns what frequency? Especially since radio waves reach across state lines?

Suppose a large broadcaster simply starts blasting a smaller one off the air? And suppose the big guy has much greater resources for fighting a court battle than the little guy? Or is this maybe what libertarians want?
I.13.Protection of Privacy

If a private employer screens prospective or current employees via questionnaires, polygraph tests, urine tests for drugs, blood tests for AIDS, or other means, this is a condition of that employer's labor contracts. Such screening does not violate the rights of employees, who have the right to boycott such employers if they choose.

And if a large number of employers all adopt the same practices, you can boycott food and shelter, too.
I.18.Immigration

We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

Aww, isn't that nice? Why do you suppose the Libertarian platform specifically mentions Hispanics but not Haitians? Is the concern here for human rights? Or is it, just maybe, a plan for creating a huge pool of low-paid workers?
I.19.Freedom of Association and Government Discrimination

Individual rights should not be denied, abridged, or enhanced at the expense of other people's rights by laws at any level of government based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation. We support repealing any such laws rather than extending them to all individuals. Discrimination imposed by government has caused a multitude of problems. Anti-discrimination laws create the same problems. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it. The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of this right depends upon mutual consent.

Okay, just ask any black who couldn't find a decent place to stay, or a decent job back in pre-Civil Rights days, just how well "mutual consent" worked. Mutual consent means consent of both sides.

I don't like anti-discrimination laws. They are invasive, burdensome to enforce and a fertile breeding ground for meddlesome busybodies. We have them for one simple reason: when we didn't, American society arbitrarily denied equal treatment to entire classes of people. There was a national brouhaha during the Korean War when the Red Cross decided to stop segregating blood by race. When blacks outscored whites on aptitude tests for the Philadelphia Fire Department before World War I, the department said "We don't care what the tests show. We're not hiring blacks - period."

So where are black travelers going to stay if white-owned motels decide not to take them in? Why should we expect the free market to solve this problem? It didn't prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act. Things have changed, and probably if we did away with civil rights laws we would find most people still being less biased than they once were. But can we really be so sure? And what's the libertarian plan if widespread discrimination, so extensive that it shuts some groups out nearly everywhere, returns?
I.20.Women's Rights and Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

It's nice to see the Libertarians have mastered one tactic of the major parties - the fine art of weasel words. If all government is kept out of the question, that's tantamount to supporting abortion on demand. Or, if by government, they mean Federal government, it's tantamount to permitting local control, which amounts to repealing Roe vs. Wade. So which of the two is their position? And why don't these people who claim to be gutsy enough to take on both major parties have the guts to spell out exactly what they mean?
I.21.Families and Children

A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.

Just imagine how many kids would quit school and flock to 16-hour a day jobs paying $2 an hour in sweatshops if we did this. American kids could have all the rights of kids in Honduras or Bangladesh. Gee, another plan to create a huge pool of unskilled labor.
II.3.Inflation and Depression

All restrictions upon the private minting of coins should be abolished so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

Private coins and bills were common in the 19th century when travel was rare and official currency was often in short supply. A token or bill issued by a well-known local bank would be accepted as trustworthy. Just imagine going to Seattle and trying to spend money minted by Bernie's Mint of Tampa.

Presumably the coins would be precious metal, because any other privately minted coins would be worthless, but you can see how easy it would be to adulterate the metal with innumerable private coins floating around.

The fixation that some extreme right-wingers have with precious metal is interesting. The stock of precious metal hasn't expanded nearly as fast as the total GNP in recent decades. So basically these people want to hold onto inert metal they themselves did not mine, and see its value skyrocket as other people work to advance technology and build infrastructure. All the while, presumably, complaining righteously about freeloaders who want money without working.
II.4. Finance and Capital Investment

We call for the abolition of all regulation of financial and capital markets -- specifically, the abolition of the Securities and Exchange Commission, We call for repeal of all laws based on the muddled concept of insider trading.

II.6. Monopolies

We condemn all coercive monopolies. "Anti-trust" laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by limiting competition. We therefore call for the repeal of all "anti-trust" laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act which restricts price discounts, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. We further call for the abolition of the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.

Given the current state of the stock market, it really takes guts to go public with these proposals. Not even Enron in all its glory had the nerve to propose legalizing insider trading.

Now what exactly is a "coercive" monopoly? No monopolist was ever forced at gunpoint to shut out competition. The Postal Service is coercive: by law, nobody else can deliver first class mail. But for a large company to use its economic muscle to drive competitors out of business and then set whatever prices it likes? That's not coercive - those people are acting of their own free will.
II.5. Government Debt

Governments facing fiscal crises should always default in preference to raising taxes.

The Libertarian Party is opposed to all taxation, feeling that the government has no right to take money away from people. Instead, the government has the right to borrow money and not pay it back.
II.10. Unions and Collective Bargaining

We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain. Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state Right-to-Work Laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions.

We haven't had a good bloody clash between strikers and strike breakers in a long time.
III.1. Energy

We oppose all government conservation schemes through the use of taxes, subsidies, and regulation.

Actually, if there's one arena where the free market might play a constructive role, it's in energy. Let the price of gas go up until SUV's become worthless. Let areas with energy shortages pass laws to shut down the NIMBY's (Not in My Back Yard) and build power plants close by. If airports are crowded, let fares go up.
III.2. Pollution

Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. We therefore demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Okay, so you have $10,000 in the bank, and you take a company to court whose annual legal budget is $10 million. Care to guess how well this system will work? And if we dismantle most government and eliminate most taxes, where exactly will the money and people to enforce "strict liability" come from? Details, details.

Many conservatives argue for a "loser pays" system of liability, a step in the right direction. But we can go further. How about a "lowest bidder" system? Both parties in a legal action submit bids of how much they are willing to pay in legal expenses. The lower of the two bids is the ceiling. Neither side can spend more.
III.3. Consumer Protection

We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. However, we oppose paternalistic regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict risk-taking and free choice. We oppose all so-called "consumer protection" legislation which infringes upon voluntary trade, and call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Just the other day I was wondering where I could buy adulterated food and some appliances with dangerous wiring.

We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration, which has jeopardized safety by arrogating to itself a monopoly of safety regulation and enforcement. We call for privatizing the air traffic control system and transferring the FAA's other functions to private agencies.

Customers will surely boycott airlines with lots of crashes. If the air traffic control system in Chicago creates a hazard, you can just fly to Minneapolis or Cleveland instead. And if you're the owner of a private plane, what's to guarantee a private air traffic control system will let you use a certain airport? If your home town is served by airline X, and your destination is served by Y, and the two airlines refuse to cooperate, what guarantee do you have that you can get there at all?

We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration and particularly its policies of mandating specific nutritional requirements and denying the right of manufacturers to make non-fraudulent claims concerning their products.

That word "non-fraudulent" conceals a multitude of sins. We can presume consumers would avoid products that listed "cockroach parts" or "rat excrement" among its ingredients. (Having worked in some food processing plants, I can assure you that even the most conscientious manufacturer cannot keep an entire factory surgically clean. If you think that's appalling, invite the local health inspector in to check your kitchen, and see if you pass.) The Food and Drug Administration exists specifically because, in its absence, food and drug processors lied blatantly about the contents and efficacy of their products. I mean outright, in-your-face deception, like adding grass seeds to jam to make it appear natural. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle if you have any lingering doubts. So who's going to detect consumer fraud in the absence of the FDA?

If you think tainted meat is a problem now, just wait. Do you doubt that there are food processors who'd toss dogs, cats and rats into the grinder, bones, fur and all, if they thought they could get away with it? If the free market didn't provide clean food before the FDA, what assurance do we have that we'll get it after we abolish the FDA?
III.6. Transportation

We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership.

Say what? First of all, much of it is private already. Second, Government run railroads like Amtrak and Conrail exist specifically because privately run railroads wanted to unload those lines.

We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads, and the national highway system.

Public roads and the national highway system? Read up on the history of American roads to see how well the free market did in providing them well into the 20th century. And even if someone could build his own Interstate highway, how would he acquire right of way if everyone on the route knew they could hold out for an exorbitant price? And what if the owner of one highway refused to allow the owner of another to join or cross his?
III.7. Poverty and Unemployment

We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and "aid to the poor" programs. All these government programs are invasive of privacy, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

And if the need exceeds the resources of private groups, then what?
III.9. Resource Use

We call for the homesteading or other just transfer to private ownership of federally held lands. We oppose any use of executive orders invoking the Antiquities Act to set aside public lands. We call for the abolition of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. We oppose creation of new government parks or wilderness and recreation areas. Such parks and areas that already exist should be transferred to non-government ownership. Pending such just transfer, their operating costs should be borne by their users rather than by taxpayers.

Do you think you'll get shoreline property in the Apostle Islands or a chunk of Grand Teton National Park under this plan? Call me a cynic, but why do I have the feeling that "just transfer" means "sale to the highest bidder?" and "homesteading" means "being snapped up by the nearest landowner?" Just look at how well the free market has preserved shoreline access in most areas. Where can an average citizen get to any shoreline, anywhere, except on public lands? Then ask yourself what assurance you have that whoever buys some national park won't turn it into an exclusive resort for the wealthy. If you enjoy outdoor recreation, you can kiss it goodbye if Libertarians have their way.

The smartest thing the U.S. Government ever did was to retain ownership of land in the West. Just travel through the West and observe the mean-spirited, petty attitude of Western landowners who bar access to totally unused land merely because they have the legal right to, then picture all open land in the hands of these people.
III.11. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)

We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This law denies the right to liberty and property to both employer and employee, and it interferes in their private contractual relations.

Just the other day I heard workers complaining about the Federal government interfering with their right to lose body parts in machinery.
III.14. Civil Service

We recognize that the Civil Service is inherently a system of concealed patronage. We therefore recommend return to the Jeffersonian principle of rotation in office.

This would replace concealed patronage with up front, wide open patronage.
III.15. Election Laws

The Australian ballot system, introduced into the United States in the late nineteenth century, is an abridgement of freedom of expression and of voting rights. Under it, the names of all the officially approved candidates are printed in a single government sponsored format and the voter indicates his or her choice by marking it or by writing in an approved but unlisted candidate's name. We should return to the previous electoral system where there was no official ballot or candidate approval at all, and therefore no state or federal restriction of access to a "single ballot." Instead, voters submitted their own choices and had the option of using "tickets" or cards printed by candidates or political parties.

This one, at first glance, is just plain weird. How does the present system infringe on anyone's rights? You can write in any candidate you like. True, if you write in Mickey Mouse, you probably won't show up on the official tally, but you can do it.

In many cases, the Libertarian Party seems blissfully unaware that there was ever a problem with some of their proposed reforms. Wholly apart from the chaos this could entail in counting votes, there's a good reason we abandoned this system. With privately printed ballots, anyone could tell from across the room how anyone else voted. An employer who wanted to intimidate workers into voting his way needed only to station an observer in the polling place. Also, with privately-printed ballots, what was to stop someone from bringing in a pocketful of ballots and stuffing the ballot box? Do Libertarians really want free and honest elections? This plank sounds more like a plan for voter coercion and election rigging.
The 17th Amendment

Not in the Libertarian platform at the time I wrote this page, but emerging in some conservative and libertarian circles, is the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment, which called for direct election of senators. Prior to that time, Senators were chosen by State legislatures. Some people think that system better preserved the rights of the States.

Wow. If you want a recipe for rule by lobbyists, this is the one. Which costs more: bankrolling a Senate election or cozying up to a few State legislators? One of the reasons the 17th Amendment was passed in the first place (and 3/4 of the States agreed on it, for all you States Rights advocates) was the abuses of the Robber Baron era and the ease of buying Senators under the old system.
Who Dreamed This Up? And What Were They Smoking?

The Libertarian Party seems to be completely unaware that the robber baron era ever happened at all in American history. Although libertarians profess to want individual liberty, their platform is a blueprint for unrestrained rule by the rich and powerful. It's so gleefully over the top in its advocacy of unrestrained greed it's almost like the platform a committee made up of Ebenezer Scrooge, Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life, Uncle Duke from Doonesbury and Monty Burns from The Simpsons would write.

I find myself wondering who dreamed this document up. Despite its recipe for unbridled corporate greed, I can't picture anyone at any level of responsibility in corporate America being so detached from political reality as to think this platform has any chance of becoming policy or working if it did.

So who buys into this plan? The typical libertarian, I suspect, is someone like Ed Thompson, who ran for governor of Wisconsin in 2002 on the Libertarian ticket. His sole qualification was that he was the brother of former Republican governor Tommy Thompson. His only achievement was to divert enough votes from the Republican candidate to elect a Democrat (Hint: if you're the Republican Party, bankroll the Greens. If you're the Democratic Party, bankroll the libertarians.) I picture people who fantasize they could rise to greatness if only they weren't being taxed to death or tied down by endless regulations. The fact that other people, paying the same taxes and under the same regulations, do achieve greatness doesn't enter their thinking. Still less does it occur to them that they will end up suffering worse extortion and limitations on their freedom if all government functions and resources are in private, unregulated hands.
What the Free Market Can and Cannot Do

The free market is absolutely superb at creating abundance through technology. To the extent that technology can also improve quality at the same time, it provides quality. The tremendous growth in computers is a prime example.

When quantity or price collide with quality, it's no contest. In a clash between adequate quality and low price versus high quality and higher price, quality loses every time. If you want a car that will last forever, buy a Rolls Royce. If you want one good for ten years or so, any car dealer can help you. Could you build a car that lasts fifty years at current prices? Maybe, but once you saturate the market, then what? Your continuing sales will be a fraction of current car sales. So why bother? You can earn a profit selling pretty good cars that last ten years. Just try to buy, say, a CD player with durable all-metal parts, or a VCR with every single function having its own, clearly labeled button. Even if you'd be willing to pay extra, you can't find them. The consumer demand for cheap products has driven many higher quality products out of the market.

The free market provides abundance, but does a lousy job of upholding high standards. At every opportunity, voters elect politicians who water down standards. Any school that really imposed high standards would find its school board voted out of office. (Just check out Piper, Kansas, where a teacher who flunked students for plagiarism was overruled by the school board. Who is so lacking in a life that they would be afraid of being voted off a school board?) Any state that imposed an achievement test that required study time that seriously cut into students' leisure time, after school jobs, athletics, or family vacations would come under insuperable pressure to water down the tests. So we can assume that if we privatize all education and eliminate compulsory attendance laws, we will see a huge proliferation of schools that turn out mediocre, semi-literate students. We do that now? Just wait to see how much worse it can get.

Why don't politicians tell the truth? Because the ones who do, lose. Fantasy drives reality out of the marketplace every election day.

Another thing the free market fails at is providing services that don't yield a profit or cannot be sold. If you clean up your factory emissions, people downwind will get cleaner air whether they pay for it or not. Nobody has ever come up with a way to make money cleaning up slums. This isn't a criticism of industry. Industry exists to make a profit. But it is an indication that we need something besides market forces to patch the holes. Since society as a whole benefits, we bill society as a whole. That's called a tax.
So What's Plan B?

Missing conspicuously from the platform of the Libertarian Party is any specific discussion of Plan B: what will happen if things don't go as planned, how we will avoid problems that historically occurred in the absence of regulation, and how we will deal with people who don't behave like rational libertarians. I'm sure a lot of libertarians will dismiss many of the scenarios I have sketched above by saying they won't happen. But they did happen, and libertarians don't seem to show the slightest awareness of it. How specifically will we deal with a return of widespread discrimination, for example?

The Libertarian plan calls for "strict liability" and "strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation," but there is a conspicuous absence of any specific plans for making this system work. How specifically, do they plan to prevent the wealthy from using their resources to crush any legal challenge?

And what's the big deal about fraud? If we're going to assert that people should be responsible for their own health care and retirement funds and suffer the consequences if they don't have enough money, why not say that people should be responsible for detecting and avoiding fraud? Caveat emptor.

This is actually very reminiscent of the mind-set of radicals in the Sixties: let's totally break up the existing system, then worry about the details later. You'll love it. Trust us.
The Libertarian Safety Net

This is the place to start, because this is where people will end up if they cannot or will not assume full responsibility for their own well-being.

We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and "aid to the poor" programs. All these government programs are invasive of privacy, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals (Emphasis mine).

If libertarians succeed in reducing taxation dramatically, it's hard to see why people would continue to give to charity at high levels. If Libertarians also succeed in doing away with government subsidized health care and Social Security, what assurance do we have that there will be anything left over to give to charity after people safeguard their own health care and retirement?

But the bottom line is this: people who get in trouble should look to private charities for help. So let's see what might happen.
Legalization of Drugs

Most of the comments I get on this page are from people who challenge this section. I suspect some people style themselves libertarians mostly as a pretext for advocating legalization of drugs. I wonder if they have any intention of supporting more "conservative" planks of the Libertarian platform?

Let's assume that we legalize drugs as called for by the libertarian platform (I.4), that most users manage to use their drug of choice responsibly, and that we don't see any dramatic increase in the number of users. This is, in itself, a not very realistic scenario. We can hardly expect to see the same results in a world of PCP, Ecstasy, heroin and crack that we saw a century ago when the most potent things around were opium and crude cocaine, especially if we also create a world of low paying jobs and a huge pool of unskilled workers. But let's assume the best here.

We can assume there will be a lot of people who drug themselves to incapacity, just as they do now. What are we going to do with them? Presumably private rehabilitation centers will spring up to help those who want to be helped. But what about those who don't want to get off drugs, or whose brains are so scrambled they can't make an informed decision? Do we expect private shelters to spring up to house them? Suppose that doesn't happen - do we simply let them live in refrigerator cartons, camp out in parks or freeze in doorways? Where are the shelters going to be located? I can just see homeowners welcoming a drug shelter into the neighborhood. If the shelter is someplace safely removed from anyone who might object, how are the drug users going to get there? What if there aren't enough rehab centers and shelters to meet the needs because people are giving to other charities they consider more deserving, or simply not giving at all because they have to finance their own retirements and health care?

And how will they buy drugs? In the libertarian scenario, if they don't have the money, they have to go cold turkey for a while. But drug users don't do that now. Many resort to prostitution or drug dealing themselves, but a lot of them turn to crime. The libertarian platform (I.6) states: "We support restitution for the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or wrongdoer." How is this going to happen? These people are unemployable already. Will we set up work centers where criminals will work off their debts? How will these differ from slave labor camps? Given the costs of feeding, sheltering and guarding criminals, could they ever work off the costs of their crimes?

Then there are the kids. What do we do with the children of drug abusers?

Let's talk about the "responsible" drug users in this scenario (something I maintain is a contradiction in terms.) Surgeons and airline pilots are only a little stoned when they report to work. We can assume a lot of professions will exclude drug users. That means the "responsible" users will try to conceal their drug use, like many do now in the military, which has routine drug screening. We can, of course, invoke "strict liability," but that won't help you if your air traffic controller fails to avert a collision or your anesthesiologist miscalculates your dose.

By the way, if you're not a libertarian, but support legalization of drugs, tell me how you plan to deal with these problems. Don't tell me they won't happen. Tell me what you plan to do if they do happen. I won't even waste bandwidth replying to you if you don't.

Finally, while there is debate over whether drugs should be decriminalized or even legalized, there's another issue that's much simpler and established in law. Do you have the right to decide, unilaterally, that laws against drugs don't apply to you? The answer to that is absolutely settled. Until proponents of decriminalization elect legislators who see things their way, drugs remain illegal, and the issue of whether individuals have the right to violate those laws is non-negotiable. I happen to think most speed limits are set by a joint committee of the timid and the stupid, but until speed limits change, I have no right to complain if I speed and get a ticket.
Bottom Line

* Society has a right to restrict private activities, like drug use, that create large social burdens.
* Most regulatory agencies exist because:
o Someone abused his freedom and used it to deny freedom to someone else
o Someone failed to live up to his responsibility
o The free market failed to prevent or correct abuses.
* The free market is very good at creating abundance but there are some things it just cannot do.
o It often fails miserably to support high standards if those conflict with price, convenience, or popular taste
o It is just not suited for creating diffuse benefits like cleaning up the air or clearing slums

Another View

Bruce Bartlett, in the Washington Times, December 20, 2006:

The LP is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the LP to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.

Over the years, I have known a great many people who have flirted with the LP, but were ultimately turned off by its political impotence and immaturity. C-SPAN runs LP conventions and viewers can see for themselves how unserious and childish they are. They show the LP is essentially a high-school-level debating club where only one question is ever debated -- who is the purest libertarian and what is the purest libertarian position? At times, serious people have tried to get control of the LP and make it a viable organization. But in the end, the crazies who like the LP just as it is have always run them off.

Both major parties have fewer libertarians than they would without the LP, meaning the net result of the LP has been to make our government less libertarian than it would otherwise be.

In place of the LP, there should arise a new libertarian interest group organized like the National Rifle Association or the various pro- and anti-abortion groups. This new group, whatever it is called, would hire lobbyists, run advertisements and make political contributions to candidates supporting libertarian ideas. It will work with both major parties. It can magnify its influence by creating temporary coalitions on particular issues and being willing to work with elected officials who may hold libertarian positions on only one or a handful of issues. ... As long as the LP continues, unfortunately, it will an albatross around the necks of small-L libertarians, destroying any political effectiveness they might have. It must die for libertarian ideas to succeed.

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

19548 yahoos on myspace

2007-06-02T23:59:51Z

http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

posted in Libertarianism - 15 replies

Do Libertarians support free trade with nations that attack us?

2007-05-25T04:06:24Z

Yes, they do. Oh wait... exactly who is calling for a boycott of China?

http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105227&subSection=Global

Chinese Hackers Hit Commerce Department

It's the second major attack originating from China that's been acknowledged by the federal government since July.

By Gregg Keizer
TechWeb

Oct 6, 2006 02:03 PM

The federal government's Commerce Department admitted Friday that heavy attacks on its computers by hackers working through Chinese servers have forced the bureau responsible for granting export licenses to lock down Internet access for more than a month.

Hundreds of computers must be replaced to cleanse the agency of malicious code, including rootkits and spyware.

An attack against computers of the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) -- the branch of Commerce responsible for overseeing U.S. exports which have both commercial and military applications -- forced BIS to turn off Internet access in early September.

An August e-mail from acting Undersecretary of Commerce Mark Foulon quoted by the Washington Post said that BIS "had identified several successful attempts to attack unattended BIS workstations during the overnight hours." Last month, reported the Post, Foulon wrote: "It has become clear that Internet access in itself is a vulnerability that we cannot mitigate. We have tried incremental steps and they have proven insufficient."

"BIS discovered evidence of a targeted attack to access user accounts," confirmed Richard Mills, a Commerce Department spokesman. "But there is no evidence that any BIS data has been compromised."

This is the second major attack originating in China that's been acknowledged by the federal government since July. Then, the State Department said that Chinese attackers had broken into its systems overseas and in Washington. And last year, Britain's National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Center (NISCC) claimed that Chinese hackers had attacked more than 300 government agencies and private companies in the U.K.

"This [Commerce attack] is the third or fourth battle that we've lost to China," said Richard Stiennon, principal analyst with security consultancy IT-Harvest. "It's not a digital Pearl Harbor, not yet, but it's getting closer."

Although Stiennon said he doesn't have any inside information on the most recent attack, the evidence points to state-sponsored hacking. "The continuous nature of these attacks means there is a link to a state source," Stiennon said. "The Chinese are waging very effectual intellectual warfare."

An unnamed senior Commerce official also said the department has decided it could not trust the computers -- which were infected with rootkits -- and will replace them rather than try to clean them. In the meantime, BIS workers have been hampered by the inability to easily communicate with other federal and state agencies, or with the companies applying for export licenses.

"They're obviously questioning what's where in those systems," said Stiennon, who added that in some cases, even reformatting the disk drive and reinstalling software can't guarantee that all malicious code has been removed. "We don't know if the attackers have greater technology than we do," he argued. "Replacing systems is pretty draconian, but it really indicates that Commerce is very concerned."

One possible infection technique that could survive a reformat would be to store malicious code in the PC's BIOS flash memory. In January, a security researcher at the Black Hat conference demonstrated how the BIOS could be used by attackers.

In May, Congress criticized State Department plans to use Chinese-made PCs in high-security settings because it feared the machines' BIOS could be pre-infected with spyware.

"These reports read like accounts from a battlefield," said Stiennon. And the Chinese, he argued, are winning. "They've made this department less efficient for at least a month."

The official also confirmed that BIS has limited Internet access to stand-alone workstations that are not connected to the bureau's internal network.

posted in Libertarianism - 31 replies

Too many yahoos for the Daily Show

2007-05-24T01:17:13Z

All almost topics Ron Paul:

http://libertarianism.tribe.net/photos/b72da17f-c110-4aae-a238-90ab65e4d96d
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/message_board.jhtml?c=tl

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Yahoos on youtube

2007-05-23T19:11:04Z

Subscriptions:

kucinich2008: 1727
gravel2008: 883
RudyGiulianiHQ: 1388
GovMittRomney: 2012
JohnEdwards: 2763
HillaryClintondotcom: 3209
BarackObamadotcom: 5768
SenatorDodd: 230

RonPaul2008dotcom: 9978

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Is there a twit filter?

2007-05-23T07:41:33Z

I've noticed that there is a participant here whose contributions are less than useful. In the old days, we had a thing called a 'twit filter' on our usenet readers to allow us to filter out postings from this sort of reader. Does tribe.net have this sort of filter?

posted in Libertarianism - 17 replies

Libertarianism in One Lesson

2007-03-20T20:45:51Z

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html

Introduction

One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".

This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!

# Philosophy

* In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
* Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
* We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
* Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.
* Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.
* Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
* Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
* Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
* Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!
* The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.

# Government

* Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
* Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra "Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
* Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police.
* Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally burnt.
* Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an illusion.
* Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders of Statism".
* Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
* Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the world.
* Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.

# Regulation

* The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
* Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
* All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the tobacco industry.
* If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun, why don't you have even more powerful armament?
* Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.

# Libertarian Party

* The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other important officials after 25 years of effort.
* The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"
* Flip answers are more powerful than the best reasoned arguments, which is why so many libertarians are in important government positions.
* It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian platform was implemented; child labor, orphanages, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, trusts, cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.
* Libertarianism "rules" Internet political debate the same way US Communism "ruled" pamphleteering.
* No compromise from the "Party of Principle". Justice, happiness, liberty, guns, and other good stuff come only from rigidly adhering to inflexible dogmas.
* Minimal government is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.
* Government is "moving steadily in a libertarian direction" with every change libertarians approve of; no matter if it takes one step forward and two steps backwards.
* Yes, the symbol of the Libertarian Party is a Big Government Statue. It's not supposed to be funny or ironic!

# Political Debate Strategy

* Count only the benefits of libertarianism, count only the costs of government.
* Five of a factoid beats a full argument.
* All historical examples are tainted by statism, except when they favor libertarian claims.
* Spiritually baptize the deceased as libertarians because they cannot protest the anachronism: Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Spooner, etc.
* The most heavily armed libertarian has the biggest dick and thus the best argument.
* The best multi-party democratic republics should be equated to the worst dictatorships for the purposes of denouncing statism. It's only a matter of degree.
* Inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. Those without property have the freedom to try to acquire it. If they can't, let them find somebody else's property to complain on.
* Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.
* Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.
* Only libertarian economists' Nobel Prizes count: the other economists and Nobel Prize Committee are mistaken.
* Any exceptional case of private production proves that government ought not to be involved.

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

population growth

2007-03-15T01:05:34Z

Current predictions aren't a garauntee of future results, but it looks like population concerns from the 1970's were excessive.

"For 2050, the world body's estimates range from 7.3 billion to 10.7 billion people. The median, and most likely, projection of 8.9 billion relies on a gradual slowing of the growth rate. And the U.N. predicts the world population will stabilize at 10 billion inhabitants sometime after 2200. "

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa013&articleId=09E07C6F-E7F2-99DF-3AD087F0DA77D94F

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

What would Libertarians have to say about workplace safety?

2007-03-14T21:36:49Z

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/594433/investigative_report_flavoring_agent_destroys_lungs_two_workers_need_transplants/index.html?source=r_health

I'm guessing this is the Libertarian response to workplace hazards:
a) the Government shouldn't be involved because the worker agreed to be there.
b) if these workers had saved up enough and invested in the stock market they'd be millionaires instead of on lung transplant lists.
c) they got sick from these chemicals because they're weak and the weak should perish.

Did I miss anything?

posted in Libertarianism - 25 replies

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" The Beatification of Ebenezer Scrooge

2007-03-07T20:46:12Z

Is there any difference between the antagonist of "A Christmas Carol" and the beliefs of Libertarianism?

If you're a Libertarian, you must logically consider Scrooge to be a fictional saint, and his ways to be the path to righteousness.

posted in Libertarianism - 4 replies

Government marketplace interference and corporate personhood

2007-03-07T20:40:33Z

Corporate personhood is an act of courtroom activism and nothing more - it is legal fiction.

Yet it's the very cornerstone of a functioning capitalist system.

Capitalism cannot survive without the Government enforcing the fictional, imaginary concept of corporations being persons.

posted in Libertarianism - 6 replies

Various Presidential Polls - Ron Paul Vs. Dennis Kucinich and more

2007-02-12T04:24:03Z

Polls:

Ron Paul Vs. Dennis Kucinich:

http://agonist.org/poll/kucinich_versus_ron_paul_who_do_you_vote_for

Straw Poll:

http://pajamasmedia.com/

Republican Presidential choices 2008:

http://wipoll.com/wipol/?q=node/307

Presidential choices 2008:

http://wipoll.com/wipol/?q=node/308

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Ron Paul files paperwork for presidential bid

2007-02-10T19:51:21Z

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=172803

Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid — this time as a Republican.

Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money. In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian nominee for president and received more than 400,000 votes.

Kent Snyder, the chairman of Paul's exploratory committee and a former staffer on Paul's Libertarian campaign, said the congressman knows he's a long shot.

"There's no question that it's an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog," Snyder said. "But we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide."

Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes at odds with his constituents and other Republicans.

He was one of a handful of Republicans to vote in 2002 against giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, contending that only Congress had the power to declare war. At times, he has voted against funds for the military.

Paul bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.

posted in Libertarianism - 3 replies

Ron Paul's freedom principles

2007-02-10T19:48:28Z

- Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
- Property should be owned by people, not government.
- All voluntary associations should be permissible – economic and social.
- The government’s monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
- Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
- The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government’s.

Audio interview: http://www.kereport.com/Congressman/RonPaul-0001.mp3

posted in Libertarianism - 3 replies

RON PAUL FOR 2008?

2007-01-21T18:37:24Z

RON PAUL FOR 2008?

By Steven Yates
January 17, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
All too often our columns trade in bad news! I’m sure I’ve given past readers a few sleepless nights. It is my pleasure this go around to deliver some good news! Some very good news!
According to an Associated Press report released late last week, Dr. Ron Paul (R-Tx) is contemplating a run for the presidency in 2008. He has filed papers in Texas allowing him to form an exploratory committee that can raise money.
The one-time medical doctor and nine-term Congressman from southeast Texas last ran for president in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket, and received over 400,000 votes. This time around, he will be running as a Republican, which means going head-to-head against much better known (and better supported) figures such as John McCain.
This is an opportunity for what might be a pursuit worth thinking about—retaking the Republican Party, now that the warmongering neocons have run it pretty much into the ground.
Here’s a thought: both major parties may be controlled from the top—but several of my associates have offered compelling arguments that a power struggle has commenced within the super-elite itself. Arrayed on one side are the longstanding international bankers who want to operate through entities like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. On the other are the neocons and their monied backers, who have a vision of Pax Americana, a global empire run from Washington (and Israel). Lest there be any misunderstanding: both camps are globalist through and through. Both have promoted (are promoting) Fabian socialism and communitarianism. Both would dissolve our national borders in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it. But they differ over specifics. One of the areas where the two camps are butting heads is over what to do about the mess the Bush Administration has made in Iraq.
A few months ago, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, published an article declaring the Iraq War unwinnable and calling for an exit strategy. The neocon-controlled Bush Administration wants to “stay the course,” however, with Bush just having called for another 21,500 troops to be sent there. The neocons are salivating at the mouth to attack Iran!
If I were in the first group, I’d be wondering about the sanity of these people I had made the mistake of promoting into power! (It’s happened before. I sometimes wonder if the banksters and other corporate interests who propelled both Hitler and Stalin into power had counted on the pure evil and bloodlust that manifested itself in those regimes.)
This is an opportunity for the freedom movement in this country! Dr. Paul is one of the few Constitutionalists in Congress. He casts his votes exclusively on what he believes the Constitution empowers the federal government to do, and votes consistently against bills he believes exceed the authority given Congress by the Constitution. This, of course, places him at odds with most of the rest of Congress, including the powers-that-be in the Republican Party. After all, the Republicans no less than the Democrats departed from the Constitution long ago. Both endorse the welfare nanny state, just in different degrees.
Nor will Ron Paul do the bidding of the corporatist globalists. There is also nothing in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to “partner” with big business, or to supply it with corporate welfare. Paul has cosponsored a resolution (H.C.R. 487) to put a stop to the slow, gradualist merger of the U.S. with Canada and Mexico in the name of “free trade” which isn’t unless you are part of the corporate elite.
We can’t say this about more visible figures such as John McCain, beloved of the mainstream power structure. I doubt we can say it about anyone else who might seek the Republican nomination except possibly for Tom Tancredo who seems also to have been sending out feelers (and who cosponsored H.C.R. 487).
Dr. Paul appointed Kent Snyder, a former staffer on his Libertarian campaign, to chair the exploratory committee. Snyder told AP, “There’s no question that it’s an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog. But we think it’s well worth doing and we’ll let the voters decide.”
So here is what we have to do—we refers to everyone who wants to live in a free society. Should Dr. Paul officially announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2008, we need to get behind him and start working for him—whether through financial contributions for those able to make them, knocking on doors where feasible, making presentations, or producing written materials like this article. If Ron Paul is in the race, we should begin bombarding mainstream newspapers with guest columns and letters to the editor. If the columns and letters are refused publication, start circulating them online, through the many websites, forums, blogs and other Internet resources available to us. Where possible, start putting up banners and signs along Interstate highways, exits, and major intersections where traffic often slows. That way thousands of ordinary commuters, fed up with government bureaucrats, ridiculous regulations and having over 40 percent of their incomes taken
away in taxes (including the hidden tax of inflation) will see: RON PAUL, Republican and Constitutionalist, PRESIDENT IN 2008!!!
The solution to any mainstream media blackout on a Ron Paul campaign: take direct action to thwart it.
Now this calls on the Freedom Movement to do something many of its members find very hard. It calls on us to set aside our differences and work together for a common goal—establishing the credibility, plausibility and practicality of a Paul Presidency that could reverse the present direction of this country.
The inability of different groups and organizations to cooperate has hurt the Freedom Movement terribly! Christians, for example, often refuse to work with non-Christians, and vice versa. They are often uncomfortable working with those Libertarians whose worldview they see as “too secular.” Libertarians are just as uncomfortable working with them. Christians don’t always get along with each other—nor do Libertarians who have fallen into an in-house squabble over who is the “purest” Libertarian. Both have their differences with, e.g., the Constitution Party. There are many other groups each will not work with; some, in fairness, seem to prefer to remain isolated. There are single-issue groups focused on, e.g., the income tax.
Should Dr. Paul take the plunge and declare himself a candidate, every one of these needs to set aside their factional differences and quabbles and come together under one umbrella. I would go as far as to say that if Ron Paul runs, third parties should refrain from running a candidate of their own (have someone on standby, perhaps, in case Dr. Paul by some chance elects to withdraw altogether). Other groups also need to get with this program: the John Birch Society, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the League of the South, and so on.
I am hoping that should he choose to run, Dr. Paul can count on the support of think tanks such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and the Institute for Humane Studies, among many others less known nationally but capable of doing great work at the state and local levels. Free market economists such as Walter Williams will doubtless get behind Dr. Paul, as will their equivalents among philosophers such as the ever-prolific Tibor R. Machan and myself. There are differences in all of these. We don’t all work from the same first premises or have absolutely identical visions of the kind of society we want. People who are thinking as individuals probably never will. But we should all be united in the belief that individual freedoms, moral responsibility, private property rights, genuinely free markets (not corporatism), and the rule of law are necessary conditions for prosperity in this life.
We do not have a choice in this! Cooperation among all of us “underdogs” is only way a Ron Paul candidacy has even the slightest hope of making a dent against a firmly entrenched Establishment. We can worry about our differences on our own time!
Last weekend, Aaron Russo, filmmaker extraordinaire and creator of America: Freedom to Fascism, pledged to work on Dr. Paul’s behalf despite some rather serious health problems. Dr. Paul, of course, appears prominently in A:FTF pointing out that “the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express” and expressing worry about our expanding Brave New Police State. [To order Aaron Russo's new documovie America: Freedom to Fascism click on the banner below.

In a letter sent out to those of us on the A:FTF team and widely circulated on the Internet, Russo wrote, “Congressman Paul will be the only uncompromising defender of the Constitution in the race… I am 1,000% behind him!
Russo continued, “Ron Paul has stepped up to the plate because he knows what we all know: the noose is tightening, and there isn't much time if we hope to restore to Constitutional Government. I called Ron yesterday to tell him I am on board to do anything it takes to support his campaign.
He stated what I have reiterated here: “Now is the time for the entire Freedom Movement, all Third Parties, all good Americans everywhere, from all political stripes and persuasions, to unite to overtake the weakened Republican Party. Stand firmly behind Ron Paul, and work to restore our Constitutional Republic….”
”There isn't a better man for the job. He has an impeccable voting record. He is ‘right on,’ on Freedom and Sovereignty issues. In a time of universal deceit, Congressman Paul dares to commit the revolutionary act of telling the truth.” This last, of course, is a reference to the George Orwell quote that opens A:FTF.
Sound advice! In the last analysis, we have just two questions to consider: (1) Do we really wish to reverse our present course and live in a free society? (2) What are we willing to do to make it happen? We may have here an opportunity to support one of the few men in Washington who still has the vision of our Founding Fathers. There are going to be naysayers who will claim Dr. Paul’s views are “outdated,” or tell us “it can’t be done.” (One article has already described a Ron Paul candidacy as “quixotic.”) When the naysayers have specific arguments, let us answer them. When they do no more than scoff, point this out and then ignore them.

I recall a rather active member of the South Carolina Libertarian Party based in Columbia, a very energetic man named Dick Winchell whom many of us greatly admired for his willingness to go into the Capitol building and get in the faces of the South Carolina General Assembly. Unfortunately, he was often very much alone. Finally, fed up with the mere moaning and groaning so many Libertarians do about how terrible the government is, he stood up at a meeting and said, “When you guys are ready to do something, call me!”

With Ron Paul, we have an opportunity to do something. Let’s not squander it—especially, let’s not squander it by fighting amongst ourselves. There are, of course, separate battles to be fought—against Real ID, for example, or against electronic voting, and against the stealth merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. A Ron Paul anywhere near the White House put a stop to all the unconstitutional police state tactics and all the globalist nonsense. But he has to get there first. To paraphrase Kent Snyder, this has to happen at the grassroots level or it will not happen at all. And it is probably our last chance!

© 2007 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

Good Gerald Ford quote:

2007-01-04T17:55:59Z

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/gerald_r_ford.html

posted in Libertarianism - 4 replies

First 1000

2006-12-31T03:17:17Z

For any of you that are members of the Free State Project and are planning to move by the end of 2008, please sign the First 1000:

http://www.pledgebank.com/First1000

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

An open letter to all Democrats

2006-11-20T23:17:07Z

I offer my sincere congratulations to the Democrat Party for its successes this past week and will waste no time in pointing out that the responsibility you have now inherited stands very much at a crossroads. In the past five years the principles of individual liberty have been desecrated in the name of "National Security," and that desecration must end. Legislation has been put on the books that permits domestic spying without a warrant, legalizes torture and self-incrimination, and repeals habeas corpus and the right to an attorney. If these laws remain in place, the United States will continue to be a police state REGARDLESS of which party is in power.

The suggestion that Americans can somehow be protected from "terror" by giving up their Bill of Rights is absurd. Many, if not most, of you Democrat lawmakers were disappointingly complicit in this absurdity, and you frankly allowed yourselves to be intimidated into voting for police state legislation. I do not speak in hyperbole when I assert to you that the liberty-crushing legislation that has been passed during the past five years is, in the long run, far more dangerous to Americans than the actions of a few petty Islamic fundamentalists.

If you Democrats really are to make a difference, your first task MUST be to repeal that Orwellian-named "Patriot Act," the torture legislation, the detention-without-court-evidence legislation, and the right-to-invade-privacy-without-court-approval legislation. To ignore this task is to make a mockery of the phrase "Free Country," and by leaving these laws in place you will reveal yourself to be no better than the authoritarian party you have supplanted. Now when this task is done, then by all means kick off your trademark crusades for education, the environment, immigration, health care, and so forth. But deal with the police state legislation FIRST.

Do not disappoint us.

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

OMG!

2006-11-19T02:14:45Z

Keith Ellison, first Muslim elected to Congress:

http://wcco.com/politics/local_story_310080755.html

posted in Libertarianism - 6 replies

Milton Friedman - R.I.P.

2006-11-16T22:32:56Z

Libertarian Nobel laureate Milton Friedman died today.

from the Cato Institute:
"Prominent free-market economist Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, passed away today at the age of 94. Friedman was widely regarded as the leader of the Chicago School of monetary economics, which stresses the importance of the quantity of money as an instrument of government policy and as a determinant of business cycles and inflation. In addition to his scientific work, Friedman also wrote extensively on public policy, always with primary emphasis on the preservation and extension of individual freedom. Friedman's ideas hugely influenced both the Reagan administration and the Thatcher government in the early 1980s, revolutionized establishment economic thinking across the globe, and have been employed extensively by emerging economies for decades."
http://www.cato.org

see also:
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1976/friedman-autobio.html

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Listening to bush's speech right now....

2006-11-11T19:40:17Z

He sounds like he's about to have a nervous breakdown!

posted in Libertarianism - 3 replies

Chicago Libertarians?

2006-11-03T22:54:18Z

Just wondering if there are any other people from the Chicago area on this tribe? I'd like to go drinking with some other Libertarians sometime. Maybe we could get the ball rolling on some kind of activism in the area?

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

The Great Yawn of 2006

2006-10-23T14:42:09Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

We let it go. We let our President amass all the power he wanted. We knew we were being lied to and we didn't raise a stink. We knew there was torture and illegal wiretapping and secret tribunals going on and we did nothing. We bear the responsibility of giving up our essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety.

Not Clinton, not Bush, not Cheney, not "activist judges," not the PNAC, not the ACLU, not Libs, not Cons. The person to blame is the picture on YOUR drivers' license. We The People. This is OUR FAULT.

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

now is the time

2006-10-20T04:59:30Z

with the increase in political scandals, now seems like a great time to talk to republicans about switching parties. obviously, the two major parties have been corrupt for years, but it seems like a lot of republicans are shocked for some silly reason. anyway, i think now is a great time to start conversations with people about the two parties and suggest the libertarian party. i think we need to be asking these people to look at what their elected officials are actually doing-not the crap they pretend to be. ask them to look beyond the hot topics like gay marriage and abortion. get them to realize these topics are just distraction, so while they (republican officals) might be fighting against these things, they're screwing them on other issues. now is the time to ask these people why they keep banging their heads against the wall and to remind them THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO PARTIES OUT THERE.

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class

2006-10-12T00:59:08Z

He knows more than you!

1) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622
2) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4870224407360952135
3) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8018874590848634400
4) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1980674934527237459
5) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5509747643152392910
6) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3601271545224839349
7) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5824859883322263421

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Libertarian party

2006-10-10T04:19:40Z

If the Libertarian Party really cared about property rights and privacy, they would have included in their political platform the declaration of people's personal information as their own personal property.

That would remove SSN's, names, addresses, phone #'s, and all "public" records about you, from the public domain, reassigning it as your private property, to be used only on your terms by signed agreements, as all other property is now. Today, personal information is public domain, and that is a self contradiction in and of itself.

With personal information as personal property, however, companies that today make a killing in selling information about you - quite often inaccurate and untrue information - would have to pay you for its usage. You would have a say in what information they use.

But Libertarians are too beholden to the corporate elite to have thought of this. Now, no doubt, what few Libertarians there are in this nation, much less in their own forum, will probably say the corporations must have their right of way over the common citizen. Go figure.

posted in Libertarianism - 9 replies

This is why people see Libertarians as cowards and nutcases

2006-09-21T07:30:13Z

Libertarians believe that children should pay for the mistakes of their parents.

Case in point: Vlad
http://libertarianism.tribe.net/thread/b1ce5dee-9fcd-47cb-a467-f3524696dadb

Me: "As I remember it... the sins of the father will not be visited upon the child. I'm not sure which remix of that you are referring to."

Vlad: "you missremember the quote. We are all captive to the bad choices or good that were made by those who come before us. Which is why I am a poor working stiff and the Kennedy's live large. I dont object, just waiting for an opening to take my shot."

TRUTH: "{18:20} The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. "For each man shall bear his own burden" (Gal.6:5)."

Libertarians attempt to quote the Bible to justify letting children suffer for their parents' failures, but yet the Bible says that's wrong.

When shown the facts, Libertarians clam up and refuse to admit they're wrong. In fact, none of their responses to this will have anything to do with defending their viewpoint.

Take a drink every time the word "Confiscationalist" comes up.

It's that kind of ragingly nutcase behavior and abject cowardice in the face of seeing the obvious error of their reasoning, which makes Libertarians so intensely disliked, disrespected, and ridiculed in America.

posted in Libertarianism - 30 replies

Free Alex Jones films on Google!

2006-09-18T19:01:06Z

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Alex+jones&hl=en

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Its a MUST see

2006-09-17T23:43:38Z

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4023196628588378412&q=freedom+to+fascism&hl=en

Well documented (if long) history of a slide into economic bondage for the masses. It truly is a must see.

posted in Libertarianism - 2 replies

Does scientific research lead to confiscationalism?

2006-09-16T20:05:28Z

Is research like this necessary, or is it just another excuse for Government regulation? Is the environment worth all that?

Perhaps if we just put all these fish on the menu, then people will care more?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0825/p01s04-usgn.htm

In Oregon, a close-up look into a coastal dead zone
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
OFF CAPE PERPETUA, ORE.

A half-dozen scientists huddle in a cramped lab aboard the research vessel Elakha, bracing themselves against the rolling swells. As they stare at a pair of TV monitors, images of an aquatic graveyard glide across the screens.

Some 150 feet below, a robotic submersible - looking more like a portable generator with thrusters than a svelte submarine - motors just above the bottom, capturing macabre images of Oregon's newly minted and poorly understood "dead zone."

The zone is a bottom-hugging layer of water with oxygen levels so low that it can't support the variety of marine life that typically lives in these near-shore coastal waters. The bottom is littered with dead crabs, worms, and starfish. White anemones, brilliant in the submersible's spotlights, look as if they are taking their last gasp. In two runs lasting roughly an hour each, not one fish - dead or alive - appears on screen.

Unlike the dead zone that sets up each year in the Gulf of Mexico, Oregon's version can't be traced to the effects of nutrient-laden river run-off. Here, as in a handful of other coastal regions worldwide, the culprit may be global warming.

To be sure, the jury is still out on that connection, says Jane Lubchenco, a marine zoologist at Oregon State University who is heading up this day-long expedition. But, she adds, what she and her colleagues see is consistent with projections of global warming's effects on coastal winds in the spring and summer, which drive upwelling of nutrient-laden water.

These effects - identified as early as 1990 by researcher Andrew Bakun, then with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fisheries lab in Monterey, Calif. - turbocharge the upwelling. This overloads the waters with nutrients and spawns large algae blooms. The algae sink, die, and decompose, in a process that sucks oxygen out of the water and the topmost layer of sediment on the bottom, where many worms and shellfish live.

First discovered in 2002, Oregon's low-oxygen, or hypoxic, zone is longer, thicker, and more oxygen-deprived this year than at any time in the past four years. "This hypoxia is noteworthy because it's telling us that the ocean is changing," Dr. Lubchenco says. "We don't understand completely why or what it means. But we're listening; we're paying attention."

In the process, the investigation is raising so many questions about the near-shore ecosystems that it is exposing a gap in America's oceanographic research: essentially from a depth of 150 feet up to the tidal zones along the shore.

It's a region rich in biology and important physical processes. But much of it is too shallow for large research ships to explore, often too turbulent for regular research dives, and - as today's cruise shows - it's no picnic for scientists on smaller boats.

With a length of 54 feet and berths for four, the Elakha is modern, but she's essentially a day-cruiser.

Scientists aren't out long enough to find their sea legs. Everyone spends nine hours bending, leaning, and shifting weight to retain their balance.

"We'll sleep well tonight," quips Francis Chan, a biogeochemist at Oregon State who is gathering water samples from the bottom to monitor their oxygen content.

Scientists discovered the hypoxic zone during a project aimed at seeing what was living in the rocky offshore reefs just north of Florence, Ore., says Hal Weeks, a project leader in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's marine resources program. The area is remote, so it isn't heavily fished. This made it ideal for serving as a model of what a healthy Oregon reef community ought to look like.

Indeed, cruises in 2000 and 2001 with the department's robotic underwater videographer revealed a reef replete with sea anemones, star fish, sea cucumbers, as well as rock fish and other deep-water species.

A year later in 2002, following reports of deep-water fish showing up in tide pools, gathering in unusual numbers in shallow water, and dead crabs comprising up to 75 percent of a crab net's haul, scientists took another look.

"Sculpin on the bottom were belly-up; you could almost see the Xs in their eyes," Lubchenco recalls.

Even on this cruise, the scientists note a dramatic change between the images of two weeks ago and those from today - fewer live starfish, stressed anemones, and rocks covered with thick white mats of what could be new colonies of bacteria that thrive in low-oxygen environments. Water samples Dr. Chan took during this cruise show the water's oxygen content at record low levels compared with the past four years.

Not everyone is convinced that what Lubchenco's group sees portends long-term changes.

Barbara Hickey, a University of Washington oceanographer who is looking into hypoxic conditions off in Washington state, suggests that "it's very premature to say this is new or getting worse." It may look that way in the context of the past six years, she acknowledges, but looking at these conditions off Washington, they've appeared on and off before in oceanographic records from the 1960s and '70s. The same may hold true for Oregon, she suggests.

Still, she cautions, "if it is getting worse, then it could be very important."

Yet Lubchenco adds that she and a colleague have been studying the affected patch of Oregon's coast for some 30 years. Never before has she seen the shoreline evidence - deep-water fish in the intertidal zone or large numbers of dead crabs washed ashore - that people are finding today.

Several questions loom large. For one, the team isn't sure it's found the dead zone's full extent. They know it's moved farther north than in the past, but they haven't been able test the waters farther south than this day's cruise because it would take them beyond their vessel's one-day range.

If a severe hypoxic zone becomes an annual event, its effect on the coastal ecology could be profound. For example, it could prove an insurmountable barrier to larvae that currents carry along the coast to "seed" other near-shore habitats.

Meanwhile, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., are developing a sophisticated computer model that should be able to tease out whether global warming - or some type of natural atmospheric variability - is playing a role in the dead zone's formation.

It's pretty clear El Niño is not implicated, says Thomas Powell, a UC-Berkeley oceanographer. But, he continues, there may be other large-scale changes in average atmospheric conditions that typically occur every 30 years.

One such shift occurred in 1975 in the North Pacific "and it showed up in about 40 different indicators, which had an abrupt change about that time," he says. And it shows up in climate models.

It could be, he continues, that "basic circulation patterns in the North Pacific could have substantially changed, and it's just taken awhile for the system to react and settle down in this different state. I think that's been dismissed a little too early" in the hunt for causes of Oregon's dead zone "and more work needs to be done." The computer model to test these ideas should be ready for its first runs in about six months, he says.

posted in Libertarianism - 9 replies

Honor the Memory, Press for Truth

2006-09-11T11:51:10Z

In memory of all lives lost that day, and every life lost subsequently as consequence.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2343737961538650348&q=9%2F11+slideshow&hl=en

9/11 Press for Truth
http://www.911PressForTruth.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=%22press+for+truth%22

Entire film is based on interviews with victims' family members and mainstream news reports. I will be purchasing multiple copies of this DVD to give to family and friends. If you find the film helpful, please support the filmmakers and purchase a copy for yourself or as a gift.

May the truth be known and justice served.

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Guess who's running for the Libertarian nomination in '08...

2006-09-04T00:09:32Z

http://www.myspace.com/stanhope08

Hehehe...

And he's wise to 9/11. Double bonus. Not that comedians have great political prospects or anything... but whatever.

posted in Libertarianism - 4 replies

Free State Project

2006-08-29T23:22:13Z

The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.

www.freestateproject.org/

posted in Libertarianism - 3 replies

Price Gouging Durring a Disaster

2006-08-22T15:07:49Z

Does supply and demand still hold sway or should special considerations be given to community wellbeing during the disaster?

Good arguments can be made either way, so I look forward to seeing the fall out from this one.

posted in Libertarianism - 53 replies

Government legislating environmental safety is damaging America's global competitiveness

2006-08-22T06:53:57Z

Why does the Government need to dictate how much mercury we can emit from our cars? This interventionalism is damaging America's economy and putting us at a disadvantage against China.

Look at China, their economy is booming and they don't have any restrictions on mercury belching into their skies.

What good is a cleaner environment if you have no job? I'd much rather have undrinkable water and inedible food than be out of a job. Let's do something about all this hippie communist environmentalism before they ship all our energy production to China!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060811/us_nm/environment_mercury_dc&printer=1;_ylt=ArxqjF21qs3UKNfR4DjSxO0XIr0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Curbs on mercury only dent global threat: experts

By Andrew SternFri Aug 11, 5:29 PM ET

Mercury built into older-model U.S. vehicles will be removed before they are melted down for scrap under an agreement announced on Friday, putting a small dent in a worsening global environmental threat.

Droplets of airborne mercury emitted by coal-burning plants, waste incinerators and from small-stakes gold mining operations circle the Earth for up to a year before descending in rainfall, contaminating waterways and converting to a toxic form that is dangerous to humans and wildlife.

"Mercury is a global pollutant that affects populations without regard to where they live," said James Hurley, director of an international conference on mercury pollution held this week at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

The agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the industry that dismantles, shreds, and melts down the hulks of old vehicles requires the removal of mercury-laden switches found in the trunks and hoods of vehicles made prior to 2003.

Vehicles built since 2003 do not contain mercury, a familiar liquid metal used in consumer products from fluorescent light bulbs to thermometers.

The total amount of mercury in vehicles built over the past 30 years totals 250 tons, the group Environmental Defense said. But some 2,000 tons of mercury finds its way into the global environment each year, half of which comes from Asia -- a majority of that from China.

While developed countries have sharply curbed emissions of the metal by exerting controls on garbage and medical waste incinerators, tons of mercury from scrapped products is exported to developing countries where lax environmental controls combined with increased coal burning and a gold mining boom have lifted mercury pollution.

Applying mercury to ore is an outmoded method of extracting gold, yet it is commonly used by the estimated 15 million small-scale miners attracted to rising gold prices.

TOXIC EFFECTS

Mercury's toxic effects are pronounced in the nervous systems and brains of exposed children, and can damage organs and cause seizures in adults.

Research was presented at the conference showing high concentrations of mercury in the Arctic, where it tends to accumulate under the ice but also in polar bears.

Wetlands rich in the microorganisms that convert it to its organic form, methylmercury, can also be heavily contaminated. Methylmercury enters the food chain and accumulates in fish and the animals and humans that eat them. Even songbirds recorded high mercury levels, showing it is not just an aquatic pollutant.

All but six U.S. states have issued advisories warning pregnant women and young children to avoid eating fish caught in some or all of their waterways and for adults to limit consumption. But those advisories rarely get to people who catch and eat fish, University of Wisconsin researcher Maria Powell said.

"In markets in Cleveland, you can buy carp and catfish that are on the do-not-eat list for Lake Erie," she said.

Despite anecdotal information that selenium found in many foods and omega-3 fatty acids in fish might protect against mercury's effects or rid the body of the mineral, studies at the conference found neither did.

posted in Libertarianism - 12 replies

While disliking our system let us not forget....

2006-08-17T06:48:56Z

the country we'll most likely get our clocks cleaned by, China.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0%2C%2C31200-china_p10436%2C00.html#

They're still the same souless "the good of the state and it's apparatus outweighs the rights of the individual or non-state group." The same commies 'tards that gunned down the students, housewifes, workers, other soldiers and sailors in Tianamen Square.

Sas

posted in Libertarianism - 6 replies

End-of-chapter essay question...

2006-08-17T02:42:18Z

What does the Declaration of Independence mean to YOU? Discuss.

posted in Libertarianism - 4 replies

Spanish national anthem

2006-08-16T22:03:26Z

http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=53471&r=4

As a long-time Libertarian, I can't help but laugh at this. It would be even funnier if someone recorded an Arabic version.

posted in Libertarianism - 24 replies

Dave Nolan for congress, AZ district 8

2006-08-14T00:21:38Z

Here in Tucson we have Dave Nolan, the founder of the libertarian party, running for congress. I go to the meetings, but until this morning I really thought the campaign was an exercise in futility. Check out the results of yesterday's Tucson Citizen poll:

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/21441.php

posted in Libertarianism - 2 replies

Europe's Capitalist Manifesto

2006-08-09T00:27:20Z

By Stefan Theil
Newsweek International

Aug. 14, 2006 issue - Europe could use more people like Ehssan Dariani. The 26-year-old entrepreneur runs a hot Internet start-up called studiVZ—Europe's fastest-growing social network for university students. Since setting up in a cheap Berlin loft only last fall, he's already hired 25 people. Yet when Dariani looks back at his high-school days, a decade ago in the west German city of Kassel, he remembers his teachers warning against exactly what he's doing. "They taught us the market economy was a dangerous wilderness full of risk and bankruptcy," Dariani says. "We never learned how prices affect supply and demand, only about evil managers and unjust wages." If he'd listened to his teachers, he'd be among the vast majority of German students who dream of becoming civil servants or fitting into the comfortable hierarchy of a traditional corporation. Instead he set out and created some desperately needed jobs.

continued: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14206355/

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

The hard truth

2006-08-05T18:11:27Z

1) Follow generally accepted accounting principles
2) Include social security and medicare liabilities

Then the *real* federal deficit is ...

$3.5 trillion

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

"Target America" Drug War Nonsense

2006-08-02T17:55:28Z

I highly recommend:

http://www.deatargetsamerica.com/

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Is it okay for capitalists to buy from Communist countries?

2006-07-30T04:47:02Z

If you're a Laissez-faire capitalist isn't it self-contradictory to buy products made from totalitarian (pseudo-)Communist countries like China?

Why do American conservatives talk so much about patriotism and yet they characterize American workers as lazy and overpaid? The consistently hateful broadbrushing of American workers and the cheering on of foreign sweatshops couldn't possibly be anything but a direct contradiction to any sensible definition, or even re-definition, of (American-centric) patriotism.

Perhaps patriotism and capitalism, to say nothing of the fear of God, have all given way to an all-out amoral quest for convenience?

posted in Libertarianism - 53 replies

Do you believe in survival of the fittest?

2006-07-27T04:34:35Z

Do you believe in casting aside the unfit, and devoting more energy and resources toward that which is stronger and more likely to survive?

Well, history shows that nations that have no dole for their citizens - the purely or nearly purely laissez faire economies - do not survive the test of time.

History also shows that absolute nanny states like the USSR don't last long either.

To push for either system is proven repeatedly by history to be a doomed cause. In the world of survival of the fittest, they simply aren't fit and can't survive.

On the other hand, the strongest nations in the world have struck a balance between laissez-faire and the nanny state. This is certainly heresy in a Libertarian tribe, but in reality, it is the backbone of the strongest nations in the world.

Should not the strongest survive?

posted in Libertarianism - 61 replies

Greens and Libertarians can live in Harmony

2006-07-26T06:12:59Z

Greens and Libertarians
The yin and yang of our political future
by Dan Sullivan 1992

Over the past three decades, people have become dissatisfied with both major parties, and two new minor parties are showing promise of growth and success. They are the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. These are not the only new parties, but they are the only ones that promise to attract people from across the political spectrum. Most other small parties are either clearly to the left of the Democrats or to the right of the Republicans. Such parties would have a place in a system that accommodates multiple parties, but are doomed to failure in a two-party system...

(full article @)
http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/greenlibertarians.html

posted in Libertarianism - 36 replies

Laissez-Faire Capitalism Discourages Altruism & Rewards Amoral People?

2006-07-23T18:04:44Z

Hello,

Until a few days ago, I considered myself a libertarian, but then someone asked me a question "without social security, who's going to care for very old people who have no money and no family?"

I couldn't find a good answer to that question. Yes, they should have saved while they were working. But now that they are old and too weak to work to pay for the high level of attention they need, should we just let them die? The answer was "no". Yet a libertarian economy the only hope they have is charity. One could plausible argue that charity is unreliable, but that's not my greatest concern.

My concern is what happens to people who engage in a lot of charity vs people who are amoral and just don't care about others. Capitalism concentrates power in the hands of the amoral.

Imagine two people who are very similar to each other and enter a free market the same day. One is amoral and only cares about wealth and himself while the other one likes to help others who are unable to help themselves and are never able repay him back. Over several years, the amoral one will most likely be much richer than his friend. He'll explore morally questionable opportunities that the other won't be able to explore and this will add up over time.

Fraud and theft are not supposed to be in a free market, so I'm not talking about crime lords. I'm talking about people who are not interested in helping others unless they have something to gain from it. People who won't give unless it's a PR opportunity. People who won't assist economically useless, bedridden old people in their last days on earth. People who will always free-ride when given the opportunity. These people will become richer and pass the riches to heirs who have been trained in their ways.

So over several generations, in a tax free society, wealth will be concentrated in the hands of selfish, amoral people. The good samaritans will be generally poorer because:
1) They give away their wealth: money, time, attention, services in charity.
2) They can't explore certain opportunities (not theft, not fraud) that they think are unfair to others.

It seems to me that in order to 'help the helpless' in a society while also preventing wealth from being concentrated in the hands of people who don't care (vs. those who are charitable), there has to be a tax that takes money from everyone equally and gives it to those who would die because they are not able to offer services to others who have wealth. Like those old people with no relatives or savings, babies with Hiv, and the disabled.

Or what do you think? If people are unable to obtain food, do we just let them die or use a system that makes poorer those who can't bear to see them die?

Those are my thoughts. Do you agree that capitalism penalize altruism? Are there factors I haven't considered? Am I right in switching to the belief that government should be involved in welfare programmes to save lives without penalizing the benevolent and making those who don't care relatively richer?

Regards,

Seun Osewa
http://www.nairaland.com/

posted in Libertarianism - 24 replies

Buffalo politician calls for drug legalization - Radio Poll needs your help!

2006-04-20T22:11:51Z

4/20/2006 - Happy 4/20

Wednesday the county executive, the chief politician in Erie County, said that the rash of recent killings requires a serious discussion about drug legalization. The story is below but also, please go to the main talk radio website and vote on their poll. I know these are not scientific but they are reported and they do get headlines.
Heres the URL:

http://www.wben.com

Giambra advocates legalizing drugs
By ROBERT J. McCARTHY and T.J. PIGNATARO
News Staff Reporters
4/20/2006

Erie County Executive Joel A. Giambra said Wednesday that a rash of drug-related killings in Buffalo over the past few days should prompt a serious discussion about legalizing some narcotics.

Giambra noted that the alleged killer of Sister Karen Klimczak confessed that he was high on crack uh uh when he committed the murder on Friday, while drugs are thought to be involved in other recent slayings. Drugs also are listed as the cause of many of Buffalo's 56 homicides last year, according to city police.

Any course other than some type of legalization amounts to "pretending" that current anti-drug efforts are working, Giambra said.

"Until we get real about it, this problem is going to continue to build on the streets of urban America," he said. "We have to talk about legalization."

Area law enforcement and narcotics detectives battling dr ugs day in and day out were flabbergasted on learning of the county executive's comments.

"He ought to take a ride around the streets," said Lt. Joseph Leo, an 11-year veteran in the Lackawanna Police narcotics unit. Leo said drugs "alter the mind" of the user, creating addictions that feed crime and lead to violence. Legalized or not, that wouldn't change.

"What's going on out there is that people can't afford their habit, so all they're doing is stealing and robbing from family and friends or whoever gets in their way," he said. "People can't afford what it costs to buy a bag of crack . . . so, for $10 the guy goes nuts."

Buffalo Police Commissioner H. McCarthy Gipson also is against legalizing narcotics. "Allowing for narcotic intoxicants to get further entangled in our society is not a positive and is not going to bode well for anybody," Gipson said. "It just has catastrophic potentialities."

Lt. Thomas Lyon of the Buffalo narcotics and vice unit says his detectives see the tragedies drugs wreak on families and neighborhoods all the time. It wouldn't be any different if they were legal.

"We're in the trenches every day. We see the damage the drug culture has done to neighborhoods and people," Lyon said. "Doctors, lawyers, kids, people from all walks of life who you'd never expect to see huddled up in the corner of a crack house having lost everything they ever had. Legalizing it is not the answer."

Some national figures like conservative commentator William F. Buckley and former Secretary of State George Schultz have raised the issue of legalization, while U.S. District Judge John T. Curtin of Buffalo also has publicly discussed it. But Giambra said Wednesday he believes he is the first local elected official to raise the possibility.

"It's easy to sit back and pretend you can fix the problem, but based on the number of homicides and deaths we're seeing, the criminals are winning," he said. "We need to look at what other countries are doing and see what might be more effective than doing what we're doing.

"I don't believe anyone looking at this nationally believes that current methods to eliminate the problem are working," Giambra added. "They have failed miserably."

Leo attributes much of the problems to judicial leniency at sentencing time, Gov. George E. Pataki's recent rollback of the state's strict "Rockefeller drug laws," and underfunding police narcotics enforcement.

Despite those limitations, Lackawanna has realized its share of success in the "War on Drugs," Leo said. Parts of the city used to be "like a candy store" for drugs, and with it came crime, he said. That's changed dramatically in recent years with tough crackdowns on dealers, users and houses peddling drugs.

"It's a lot better than it ever was out here," Leo said.

The county executive offered no specifics on a plan to legalize drugs. He also did not say what drugs should be afforded noncriminal status, or how any new laws should be enforced.

But he did say he will continue to discuss the situation to stimulate some kind of new thinking. "I'm just trying to stimulate a different kind of discussion to get people away from pretending," Giambra said.

Another Supporter:

Former police captain from Erie county, NY call for legalization!

Peter Christ is a former police captain who spent about two decades enforcing laws in direct compliance with prohibition (aka the War On Drugs). Though a police officer, Peter has never been shy about speaking of the kinds of troubling situations he witnessed firsthand while enforcing drug laws, both against ordinary citizens as well as other officers. Drug reform is hence a topic which is near to his heart: he saw the ramifications of the War On Drugs every day for many years.

For a full profile of Peter Christ visit LEAP's (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)website:

http://www.leap.cc/speakers/christ.htm

http://www.leap.cc

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

LibTV

2006-04-15T07:04:37Z

Have a look at the libertarian videos posted here:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=libertarian

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Caution: do not read if your blood pressure isnt under control

2006-03-21T22:01:41Z

http://journalstar.com/articles/2006/03/19/local/doc441b6365554bd121728534.txt

posted in Libertarianism - 3 replies

New Tribe - For a Gold Standard

2006-03-02T22:06:32Z

Because inflationism is a form of control
http://tribes.tribe.net/goldbugs

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

An invitation

2006-02-21T06:32:35Z

To my new tribe
http://tribes.tribe.net/drunkenramblings

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Fellow Libertarian and Medical Marijuana Patient Needs YOUR Help!

2006-01-29T16:03:27Z

CANADA/CALIFORNIA: Cancer Patient Extradited, Imprisoned

How inhumane the legal system can be in dealing with the sick and dying was brought into heartbreaking relief in San Francisco this week. Prominent patient-activist Steve Kubby, who is bravely battling a rare cancer, was arrested on drug charges after being deported from Canada. Word last night from Mr. Kubby was that his jailors were refusing him the
medical treatment that has been keeping him alive.

Activist arrives, is jailed
by Herbert A. Sample and Art Campos, Sacramento Bee
Having exhausted all appeals to remain in Canada,
medical marijuana activist Steven Wynn Kubby returned
to the United States on Thursday evening, only to be
whisked away by police before a crowd of more than two
dozen supporters could greet him.
http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=3053

U.S. jail sentence awaits failed pot refugee
by Terri Theodore, Canadian Press
There was an emotional farewell Thursday at Vancouver
International Airport as medical marijuana crusader
Steve Kubby reluctantly returned to the United States
to face a jail sentence.
http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=3052

Medical Marijuana Crusader to Face Jail
Associated Press
Medical marijuana crusader Steve Kubby, a key figure
behind California's voter-approved medical marijuana
law, is back in the United States to face jail time on
a drug conviction after spending years as a fugitive
in Canada.
http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=3051

Medical Marijuana Advocate Arrested in San Francisco
Los Angeles Times
Medical marijuana crusader Steve Kubby, a former
Laguna Beach resident who was a 1998 Libertarian
candidate for governor and one of the authors of
California's watershed medical marijuana law, was in
custody today.
http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=3049

Medical marijuana activist forced to leave country
by Shannon Kari, Globe and Mail (Canada)
The Canada Border Services Agency has informed medical
marijuana activist Steve Kubby and his family that
they must leave the country by Thursday, or face a
forcible removal.
http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=3036

Friends,

Michele Kubby sent the following note to the Kubby
email list at shortly after midnight Saturday.
Please call the jail nurse at 530-745-8500 and request
that Steve be provided with immediate medical
attention. Your calls are important!

For more on the jail see
http://www.placer.ca.gov/sheriff/jail/

Please also see Alert: Steve Kubby Is in the Placer
County Jail
http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0322.html

Unfortunately the other offices listed in the alert
are closed on Sunday so there will be nobody to talk
to before Monday morning.

Twice before when Steve was jailed your phone calls
and messages saved his life.

Thanks for your effort and support.

It's not what others do -- It's what YOU do

**************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE****************

Unfortunately I missed Steve's call today because of
an interview. No problem, Steve called our Auburn
contacts and described the circumstances of his day.

It seems that Placer has moved him from the infirmary
to solitary confinement. He has a cell all to himself
and he was freezing. Again they are ignoring his pleas for a
blanket and have left him to shiver and chatter in a
cold cell. Remember, this is in the foothills of the
Western Sierra. It is very cold and the cold is a
damp cold. I'm afraid he will be looking at getting
pneumonia soon if he is not warmed up.

This is exactly the cruel and inhumane treatment I
described to Canadian officials, that would happen if Steve were
returned to the US. I also told them repeatedly that
Steve would be immediately arrested upon his arrival
at SFO, which is exactly what happened. Of course the
Canadian government officials that judged our case
responded to my pleas for protection from this grim
future by turning a blind eye, ignoring evidence, and
refusing to do the right thing when they could. They
cannot see what they have done, for to do so would
have to mean that they were wrong and have made a
terrible life threatening mistake.

This, of course, is exactly the position that Placer
is in. To admit that they are wrong about the life
saving properties of cannabis is impossible. Better
to test this theory out and see if it can really save
a life.

Steve always liked to give us good news. So, the good
news about today is that the Marinol is helping to
control the rectal bleeding he was experiencing as
well as the blood pressure. Of course Marinol does
not contain the catacholimes present in the whole
plant, and these have been shown by Dr. Guzman of
Spain to have the properties of inhibiting a protein
necessary for blood vessel development, which results
in the cancer tissue being denied nutrients as well as
teaching cancer cells to die.

With Marinol, Steve is only partly protected. Because
Marinol uses only the THC active portion of the
cannabis plant, his tumors are now free to grow again.
This type of tumor is particularly apt to grow into
the spinal cord, brain and organs.

Now, the bad news is that Placer has not taken his
blood pressure since he arrived yesterday. Steve must
be on a constant monitor in order to gauge the
severity of his medical condition. At any time, his
blood pressure can skyrocket. Being freezing cold
stresses the body which releases more chemicals which
worsens the danger.

This is a game of chicken and Steve doesn't have much
of a chance. He has been stripped of all rights, including
his right to the special diet he needs. Steve can
have a blood pressure attack from eating a bar of
chocolate or eating foods with MSG in them. In
addition, most low quality meats, like those served in
jails, are full of steroids, which are basically food
for Steve's tumor to eat and then make even more
adrenaline chemicals to rack his body. Unless he can
eat his very limited diet of tofu, dill, garlic, and
hemp oil salad, plus his oatmeal cookies, he is going
stimulate the tumor even more to produce adrenaline
chemicals.

A human's right to care for his or her body as he or
she choses, should be recognized by governments. What we put into
our bodies to heal us and keep us balanced or relieve
our pain, is our right. Especially if that person is
suffering from a serious and rare type of cancer.

This all brings me to the most disturbing news of the
day: Steve asked our friend to relay that Placer deputies have
forced/intimidated him into signing a waiver which states
that Steve absolves Placer County of any responsibility if he
dies in their care, because he has refused to take conventional,
alpha and beta blocker blood pressure medication.

The problem with this medication, is that it only
protects Steve from a certain level of blood pressure
attacks. If Steve's body decides to raise his blood
pressure over the protection of the alpha and beta
blockers, then it will be like Mt. Vesuvius erupting
and unless he is in a hospital with access to an IV
drip, he will not get the blood pressure medication he
would need to control the life threatening blood
pressures wreaking his body.

Placer County is playing with fire. I pray that they
educate themselves on what happens when fire gets out of
control.

Michele Kubby

Saturday, 28 January 2006

Name: Kubby, Steven Wynn

Age/Gender: 59/Male

Jail ID/Booking No: P00049899/0601064#

Facility/Floor: PC/N

Book Date: 1/27/2006 14:41

Arresting Agency: Placer County Sheriffs Department

Custody Status: In Custody

Authority: Charge(s): Bail:

Bench Warrant 1. 11377 (A)HS Possess Controlled Substance

Total Bail: 0

With the above data from
http://www.placer.ca.gov/sheriff/jail/jailreports/incustody_BN.htm
we now know Steve Kubby's current status.

His friends and supporters are asking us to contact
the following:

Bradford R. Fenocchio, Placer County District Attorney

Phone: (530) 889-7000

Fax: (530) 889-7129

Email: bfenocch@placer.ca.gov

Note: Deputy DA Christopher Cattran may be contacted
at the above phone number.

-----

Sheriff Edward N. Bonner (who has ultimate responsibility for the jail)

Phone: 530-889-7800

Fax: 530-889-6883

Email: pcsoweb@placer.ca.gov

You may also make complaints via this web form:

http://www.placer.ca.gov/sheriff/save/commend/complaint.htm

-----

Additionally, contacting the county's Board of Supervisors could be helpful.

See: http://www.placer.ca.gov/bos/bos.htm

-----

We ask that your keep your messages to the point and be respectful.
The goal is to insure that Steve remains in good health, and that the
County is aware of it's responsibilities under the law.

Please keep a record of your contacts. While we pray
it will not happen, you may thus be able to provide evidence in a
wrongful death suit.

Good news: After much pain & anguish Attorney Bill
McPike reports that Steve Kubby is to receive Marinol in the Placer
County Jail! He is currently being housed in the infirmary.

He is scheduled to be arraigned at 1 p.m. in Dept. 13
of Placer County Superior Court, 11532 B Avenue, Auburn,
California, Tuesday.

This hearing is going to be an arraignment hearing on
his misdemeanor violation of probation. Bill McPike, Steve's attorney,
has indicated that Cattran, the prosecutor, will probably ask for
more time.

Here's how to contribute to Steve's commissary:

Anybody can put money on Steve's books for commissary
& health items. These must be a US postal money order.

No letters may accompany the money orders. Letters of
support may be sent to the same address.

MOs should be made out to Steve Kubby.

Steve Kubby

BK 49899

c/o Placer Co Jail

2775 Richardson Drive

Auburn, CA 95603

While many organizations have providing information
about what has happened to Steve since Wednesday, the Friday evening
blog by Ann Harrison
http://www.cannabisreport.com/blog/archives/2006/01/sf_sup_investig.php
is informative.

For more background information, please see
http://www.kubby.com

It is also important to write Letters to the Editor in support of Steve -- many targets may be found at
http://www.mapinc.org/kubby.htm

Letters to Placer County's newspaper, the Auburn Journal
http://www.auburnjournal.com/ sent to
ajournal@goldcountrymedia.com
will help insure that the local public receives the whole story.

Thanks for your effort and support.

It's not what others do -- It's what YOU do

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

any good stats on criminal prosecution of tax evaders?

2006-01-20T14:20:21Z

I've had people argue that being thrown in jail for nonpayment "just doesn't happen", but Google won't cough up a good set of stats on the topic. Any rundown of high-profile "make an example of 'em" cases?

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

How should the US protect itself...ideas on national defense

2006-01-16T04:30:27Z

Check out this link:
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/qws/ff/arc
John Arquilla has some great ideas on how the USA should protect itself. I always read his articles and think his ideas are great...

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Coming soon to the Nuclear Club

2006-01-15T23:59:10Z

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article338625.ece

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"

"The bearded 49-year-old's election as Iran's president last summer took millions of Iranians, as well as the rest of the world, by surprise. Since then he has caused outrage by demanding that Israel be "wiped off the map", questioning the historical authenticity of the Holocaust, and saying that if Europe and America wanted to atone by giving the Jews a homeland, it should be on their territory: "Why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?" "

Sas

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

Do you really want free trade with people who do this?

2006-01-07T08:53:59Z

Does Libertarianism say we should trade with anyone no matter how awful they are to their own people?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3960142867c4.htm

Foreign Affairs Extended News News Keywords: CHINA, LIONS CLUB, MALAYSIA, INVOLUNTARY HUMAN ORGAN HARVESTING, PRISONERS, EXECUTIONS, KIDNEYS
Source: International Herald Tribune
Published: June 15, 2000 Author: Thomas Fuller
Posted on 07/02/2000 21:18:48 PDT by Ironword (return of)

An Execution for a Kidney

China Supplies Convicts' Organs to Malaysians

By Thomas Fuller
International Herald Tribune

Paris, Thursday, June 15, 2000

MALACCA, Malaysia -- The night before their execution, 18 convicts were shown on a Chinese television program, their crimes announced to the public. Wilson Yeo saw the broadcast from his hospital bed in China and knew that one of the men scheduled to die would provide him with the kidney he so badly needed.

Mr. Yeo, 40, a Malaysian who manages the local branch of a lottery company here, says he never learned the name of the prisoner whose kidney is now implanted on his right side. He knows only what the surgeon told him: The executed man was 19 years old and sentenced to die for drug trafficking.

''I knew that I would be getting a young kidney,'' Mr. Yeo says now, one year after his successful transplant. ''That was very important for me.''

Over the past few years at least a dozen residents of this small Malaysian city have traveled to a provincial hospital in Chongqing, China, where they paid for what they could not get in Malaysia: functioning kidneys to prolong their lives.

They went to China, a place most of them barely knew, with at least $10,000 in cash. They encountered a medical culture where kidneys were given to those with money and a doctor could stop treatment if a patient didn't pay up. Surgeons advised them to wait until a major holiday, when authorities traditionally execute the most prisoners.

China's preferred method of capital punishment, a bullet to the back of the head, is conducive to transplants because it does not contaminate the prisoners' organs with poisonous chemicals, as lethal injections do, or directly affect the circulatory system, as would a bullet through the heart.

More than 1,000 Malaysians have had kidney transplants in China, according to an estimate by Dr. S.Y. Tan, one of Malaysia's leading kidney specialists. Many patients go after giving up hope of finding an organ donor in Malaysia, where the average waiting period for a transplant is 16 years.

Interviews with patients who underwent the operation in China reveal how the market for Chinese kidneys has blossomed here - to the point where patients from Malacca negotiated a special price with Chinese doctors.

In 1998, two doctors from the Third Affiliated Hospital, a military-run complex in Chongqing, came to Malacca and spoke at the local chapter of the Lions Club about their procedures. Kidney patients worked out a deal with the doctors: Residents of Malacca would be charged $10,000 for the procedure instead of the $12,000 paid by other foreigners.

It goes without saying that the kidney transplants these doctors perform are highly controversial. The Transplantation Society, a leading international medical forum based in Montreal, has banned the use of organs from convicted criminals. Human rights groups call the practice barbaric.

But patients here who have undergone the operation in China say they were too desperate at the time to consider the ethical consequences.

Today they are simply happy to be alive. The trip to Chongqing offered them an escape from the dialysis machines, blood transfusions, dizziness and frequent bouts of vomiting. And why, they ask, should healthy organs be put to waste if they can save lives?

''Ethics are only a game for those people who are not sick,'' says Tan Dau Chin, a paramedic who has spent his career working with dialysis patients in Malacca. ''Let me put it this way: What if this happened to you?''

Simon Leong, 35, a Malaccan who underwent a successful operation two years ago in Chongqing, says the principle of buying an organ is ''wrong.''

''But I was thinking, I have two sons. Who's going to provide for them?''

Corrine Yong, 54, who returned from Chongqing two months ago after a successful operation, was told that if she did not receive a transplant she would probably not live much longer.

''I didn't have a choice,'' she says of her decision to go to China.

For kidney patients in Malaysia the chances of obtaining a transplant from a local donor are slim. Despite an extremely high death rate on Malaysian roads - in a country of 22 million people, an average of 16 people are killed every day in traffic accidents - the organ donation system is woefully undeveloped.

Kidneys were transplanted from just eight donors last year. Thousands of people are on the official waiting list.

Dr. Tan, the Malaysian kidney specialist, says the small number of donors in Malaysia is partly due to religious and cultural taboos.

Malaysian Muslim families in particular are reluctant to allow organs to be removed before burial, although this is not the case in some other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, which has a relatively high number of donors.

Organ donation has always been an uncomfortable issue. The terminology is euphemistic and macabre: Doctors speak of ''harvesting'' organs from patients who are brain-dead, but whose hearts are still beating.

And when the issue of executed prisoners comes into play, transplants become politically explosive.

''It is well known that the death penalty is often meted out in China for things that most people in Western countries would not regard as capital crimes,'' said Roy Calne, a professor of surgery at both Cambridge University and the National University of Singapore.

Using organs from executed prisoners is not only ethically wrong, he says, but discourages potential donors to step forward in China: ''If the perception of the public in China is that there's no shortage of organs you're not likely to get any enthusiasm for a donation program.''

It is impossible to know exactly how many Asians travel to China for organ transplants. But data informally collected from doctors in at least three countries suggest the numbers are in the hundreds every year.

Also impossible to confirm is whether all patients in China receive organs from executed prisoners and not other donors.

But patients interviewed for this article say doctors in China make no secret of where the organ comes from. The day before convicts are executed - usually in batches - a group of patients in the hospital are told to expect the operation the next day.

Melvin Teh, 40, a Malacca businessman who received a kidney transplant from a hospital in Guangzhou two years ago, says doctors did not offer the names of the prisoners. ''They just tell you it was a convict,'' he said. ''They don't tell you what he did.''

Mrs. Yong says doctors told her that the donors were all ''young men'' who had committed ''serious, violent'' crimes.

Chinese officials have admitted that organs are occasionally taken from convicts, but deny that the practice is widespread.

''It is rare in China to use the bodies of executed convicts or organs from an executed convict,'' an official from the Health Ministry was quoted as saying in the China Daily in 1998. ''If it is done, it is put under stringent state control and must go through standard procedures.''

That view does not jibe with the stories that patients from Malacca tell, where kidneys are essentially handed out to the highest bidders, often foreigners.

Mr. Leong, the Chongqing patient, and his wife, Karen Soh, who accompanied him to China, say money was paramount for the surgeons involved in the operation. They recounted how another Malaysian kidney transplant patient who suffered complications while in Chongqing had run out of cash.

''They stopped the medication for one day,'' Mrs. Soh said, referring to the anti-rejection drugs. The patient was already very sick and eventually died of infection upon her return to Malaysia, according to Mrs. Soh.

Patients say they are advised by friends who have already undergone a transplant to bring the surgeons gifts. Mrs. Yong brought a pewter teapot and picture frame. Mrs. Soh and her husband brought a bottle of Martell cognac, a carton of 555 brand cigarettes and a bottle of perfume for the chief surgeon's wife.

''They call it 'starting off on the right foot,''' Mrs. Soh said.

After the operation was complete, the couple gave two of the doctors ''red packets'' filled with cash: 3,000 yuan ($360) for the chief surgeon, and 2,000 yuan for his assistant. Other patients also ''tipped,'' although the amounts varied.

It might be tempting to see the market for Chinese organs as part of the more general links that overseas Chinese have with the mainland.

Many of the patients are indeed ethnically Chinese and come from countries - Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand - with either links to the mainland or large ethnic Chinese populations.

Yet if the experience of Malaysian patients is any indication, the trip to China provides a severe culture shock. Patients recalled unsanitary conditions, and for those who did not speak Mandarin the experience was harrowing.

Mr. Leong, who speaks little Mandarin, was helped by his wife who wrote out a list of phrases for her husband to memorize. The list included: ''I'm feeling pain!'' ''I'm thirsty.'' ''Can you turn me over?'' Mr. Leong would simply say the number that corresponded to his complaint and the nurse would check the list.

But more difficult than communicating is paying for the transplant. For the Leongs it involved pooling savings from family members and appealing for funds through Chinese-language newspapers. The cost of an operation amounts to several years' salary for many Malaysians.

Yet despite financial problems and culture shock, all four patients interviewed for this article said they had no regrets.

Mr. Yeo enjoys a life of relative normalcy, maintaining a regular work schedule and jogging almost every day.

He says he was so weak before his transplant that he had trouble crossing the street and climbing stairs. Four-hour sessions three times a week on dialysis machines were ''living hell.''

Does it disturb him that an executed man's kidney is in his abdomen?

''I pray for the guy and say, 'Hopefully your afterlife is better,''' Mr. Yeo said.

And has he ever wondered whether the prisoner might have been innocent?

Mr. Yeo pauses and stares straight ahead. ''I haven't gone through that part -- the moral part,'' he said.

''I don't know. I can't question it too much. I have to live.''

[End of article transcribed from paper edition]

posted in Libertarianism - 79 replies

New tribe - objectivist singles

2005-11-28T03:50:40Z

If you're single and are 'real' and honest with yourself and want to meet others like yourself, come check out objectivist singles. If you think Dagny Taggart or Howard Roark in Atlas Shrugged were hot, come on over.

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Eminent Domain

2005-11-25T16:22:46Z

Now they are wanting to take land to build a ballpark!!!

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051006-120902-5838r.htm

posted in Libertarianism - 2 replies

FEMA, Katrina, and Libertarianism

2005-11-25T15:51:24Z

It's been a while since I posted here but this whole FEMA/Katrina Disaster has got me thinking - What are we paying for?

It seems to me that if the Federal Government is good for anything, it is coordinating efforts that are too big for an individual private organization to manage. This includes National Defense, Large Scale Trade, and in my mind multi-state Natural Disasters.

The lack of clarity in roles between Federal, State, and Local Government coupled with complete bureaucratic dysfunction created a disaster worse than the one Katrina dealt.

Is anyone else thinking the same? Could a more Libertarian Style Government manage the situation any better?

posted in Libertarianism - 6 replies

Hello

2005-11-25T14:07:09Z

I'm new to this Tribe and pretty new to Tribe.net in the first place. This looks like a rather interesting tribe and I figured I should join.

I'm not quite a libertarian, but I am sympathetic to many libertarian views and to libertarianism in general. Here are some of the issues where I am libertarian or sympathetic to libertarianism.

1. A business is run for the purpose of making money and nothing else. Profit is often the only reason why people get into a business in the first place and to expect them to do anything but make money is unreasonable. That being said this is the reason why I support MODERATE regulation because many companies would mistreat workers, pollute the enviroment, and make unsafe products.

2. Free speech should mean just that. Any speech that directly encourges violence such as a mob boss ordering a hit or skinheads planning to kill a black man should not be allowed and straight up lies or slander should not be allowed. That's it. It doesn't matter if what is being said is liberal, conservative, communist, libertarian, offensive, racist, sexist, anti-semetic, homophobic, glorifies violence, pornographic, or almost anything else. Doesn't mean that you have to like it or support it. Some think this means I'm a racist or that some of the things I mentioned. I'll give you an example of something I find very offensive, but I would never want outlaw if only for free speech. You may have heard of a genre of film called "Mondo" films. These films are often a quasi- or pseudo-documenteries about sensational topics. There is a sub-genre of "Mondo" films called the "Death film" these films such as "Traces of Death" and the far more tasteful but just as graphic "Banned from TV" show real-life images of people who have died in very gruesome ways, we get see about 88 minutes of car accident victims, murder victims, people who commited suicide, people on fire, real wholesome stuff and the same goes for websites that show similar content. Even in spite of this I support free speech.

3. A lot of regulation goes to far. Too many regulations are supported by big companies because they know that smaller corporations are not able to afford the license fees, many safety regulations are impractical and don't save any lives, cost too much, and the sheer amount of paperwork takes up too much time and money. I do believe in safety standards, but if those standards are made too high then the cost would be to heavy and praticality would be too low for the good/service to be of any use.

4. There are too many bureaucratic stupidities commited by the government. Such as ethanol used for consumption is taxed, ethanol for industrial purposes is not taxed, so the companies that make ethanol for industry have to add poison to the ethanol to make it 'denatured alcohol'. Now the poisons cost money and make the ethanol toxic. If the taxes were lower on alcohol or there wasn't any taxes on alcohol there wouldn't be this problem.

5. Government tends to be foolish with money. Example $600 toliet seats, $100,000 outhouses, corporate welfare, paying farmers not to grow crops, members of congress often abuses their power and take vactions on taxpayer money, and the pentagon pisses away more money on stupid flashy shit than all the rappers in world put togather times a thousand.

6. Welfare needs to be changed. I'm nowhere near asking for the abolishion of welfare. Since a centain amount of unemployment is good for the economy because as the economy grows more people need to be employed and a surplus of workers can fill those positions. If there is no means of support those people will then have to resort to begging or crime as a means of survival. But there are some people out there that do use welfare as an alternative to work. As an alternative to welfare the government should make those who have a mind and body capable of work to do some sort community service in their respective communities. This might even save the taxpayers some money.

7. The right to run your property/business. There are laws in some cities the restrict the color you can paint your house, what sort lawn ornaments you can have, and other such matters. You should have the right to decorate your house pretty much however you like. Same thing with business. If I wanted to open a resturant and it's 'theme' if you will, is that it celebrates tobacco use. It could be called, "Smokey Harley's". Liberal do-gooders like Rob Reiner would come down and demand that it should be shut down or laws should enacted that would ban smoking indoors. I should run my business in the manner I chose.

8. I agree with libertarians on the gun issue. In fact I'm only SLIGHTLY to the left of the NRA. Guns can be used for sport, can be used for self-defense, collecting them can become a hobby, and if all goes to shit they can be used for defense of the nation or if there is a coup (but these last two are unlikely).

9. People should be able to believe or not believe (like me) in religion. Government should remain secular at all times. Government or any other group should not get involved with interfer with the practice of religion.

10. People should have the right to form clubs, organizations, fraternaties, guilds, institutions, and associations. As long as the group is non-profit they should be allowed to allow anyone into the group or not allow anyone into the group. If the boy scouts don't want to let in gays, so be it. If they want to be small-minded and ignorant let them be. Don't like it, don't give them money and don't enroll your children.

11. Hate crime laws are stupid. A law stating that if you kill or injure someone because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability is worse than if you attacked them because of you wanted their money, you were envious, you lost your temper because they bumped into you, stared at you, or any other bullshit reason is kinda dumb. Besides, why is age and disabilty on the list anyways? I've never heard of someone being stabbed because they were a teen in a middle-aged neighbourhood or a deaf person raped because they bumped into a gang of social-darwinsts. Those laws usually restrict free speech as well.

12. Prohibition causes more problems than it solves. The alcohol prohibition in the United States of America lasting 1919-1933; led to the rise of the mafia and other organized crime groups, killed thousands of people with toxic booze, and by some estimates more people actually started drinking during the outlawing of alcohol than before the ban. The current drug war costs billions of dollars. More than half of America's two million prisoners are in prison for petty drug violations. It cost (depending on the state) between $15,000-$50,000 per prisoner. Marijuana and other soft drug should be legalized and hard drug laws should be laxed. If a junkie or a drug dealer are not causing any problems or breaking the law (other than the drug laws) they should pretty much be left alone. The Netherlands has had a lax drug policy and they have had very little problem with drugs compared to the USA. Also some people mostly liberals (I'm one of you guys, but sometimes you are a pain in the ass) want tobacco outlawed. Now, smoking IS bad for you, but everyone knows that. If this was back when the tobacco companies kept it under the rug, I'd agree that something had to be done. The problem is people choose to do it anyways. So people like "Jabba the Rob" Reiner take it apon themselves to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. "That's what we need another prohibition. The one on alcohol worked so well and the one on drugs doesn't cost enough money. Let's outlaw something else. This time 20-35% of the population are users. This can't fail!"

13. Big government isn't a good thing and too much regulation hurts the economy. The problem is sometimes politicians get carried away with government when said government has worked before. It's too expensive to have a huge government and too much money gets wasted get to manage it. I see governments handling of the economy should be like someone holding a bird; too loose and it fly's away, too hard and you kill it. Government has to realize that you need to use a feather touch.

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

Patriot Act info

2005-11-17T17:52:51Z

What do you think of this story?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act

posted in Libertarianism - 3 replies

Libertarian Left? Libertarian Right? Libertarian Centrist?

2005-11-12T03:17:51Z

I'm open to some philosphical coaching... I define myself as a Left-leaning Libertarian with a Centrist-twist; however, after a recent discussion with some friends, and a little internet research and soul searching on my part, I'm concerned I may be more of a Democrat than a Libertarian. Am I confused?

Rather than say what I "believe in", I'd like to hear from you guys how you define Libertarian Left, Right, and Center politics. I will say the one sticking point for my friends is that I don't believe in completely abandoning social welfare, corporate welfare - hell yeah! - abandon away, but I believe for a number of reasons that we shouldn't let children starve and the elderly die on the streets.

Thanks for you thoughts!

posted in Libertarianism - 81 replies

Hate Bill

2005-11-10T21:05:10Z

THOUGHT POLICE THWARTED ON NEW HATE BILL

By James P. Tucker Jr.

An attempt to slip “hate crimes” legislation (S. 1145) into the Children’s Safety Act was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a victory for grass-roots America and First Amendment advocates. But Rev. Ted Pike, who spearheaded public opposition to the bill, cautions that the peril remains.

There are several “hate crimes” bills lurking in Congress and they are typically added to “must pass” legislation, such as major spending bills, as amendments.

Some have been dangerously close to becoming law as congressmen unwittingly voted on legislation, buried in foot-thick bills, without realizing the contents.

The latest victory shows that voters can educate congressmen. Three years ago, Sen. Orrin Hatch (RUtah) joined with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in supporting hate crimes legislation.

However, after hearing from vociferous voters, Hatch joined in rejecting the latest effort to slip hate crimes legislation through Congress.

All such hate bills have two fatal flaws: they do violence to the Constitution and expand the role of the federal government down to your street and neighborhood. But these problems cannot be explained in a TV “sound bite” to nonreading Americans. This makes it hard for congressmen not to “vote against hate,” so it is critical that thoughtful Americans educate lawmakers.

The hate crimes legislation would have to be enforced by “thought police” who look into a criminal’s mind to determine if “hate” was part of the motivation. Critical evidence in such cases is whether the attacker uttered words offensive to certain handpicked groups—blacks and Hispanics, homosexuals and the handicapped.

Under the First Amendment, Americans can say awful, wrong, offensive words but their free speech is protected. It is, many lawmakers point out, a precious right that should not be compromised.

All states and localities enforce laws protecting individuals against violent crimes and they typically punish more severely than under federal laws. For example, two of the three white Texas men who dragged a black man to his death with a pickup truck are on death row (the third, who claimed he tried to stop the attack until he, too, was threatened, is serving life). The two are afraid to die and would have preferred that Texas yield to the federal government because the “hate crime” law has no death penalty.

Hate crime laws extend the heavy hand of Washington into states and localities by federalizing local crimes. A fist fight in your neighborhood can become a federal case. With such legislation now pending on virtually a year round basis, it is important to keep educating lawmakers, Pike said.

He does so on talk-radio and in appeals to Christian ministers. Readers of American Free Press called, wrote and emailed their two senators and their House member. It was a formula for victory, all agreed, but the fight must go on.

(Issue #45, November 7, 2005)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Liberty411

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

We the People Tribe

2005-11-08T02:13:34Z

Calling all Independants, Third Party Supporters and even disgruntled Republocrats. It is time for We the People to do something to take back America in the name of "We the People".

Libertarians welcome...this is a Coalition Building effort!

Join the Tribe to find out more.

http://tribes.tribe.net/wethepeople

posted in Libertarianism - 3 replies

I got mistook for a Rebublican - Aarrggghhhh!

2005-10-06T03:19:54Z

I will have to admit that I tend towards social conservatism in some respects. But I wrote an opinion on Nagasaki on my blog, and some new-age flower child decided that my diatribe qualified me as a Republican.

I think what I experienced was this: when youngsters who have come up through the government school system, who have not learned critical thinking skills, and spend more time with government school teachers than any other adults, are confronted with ideas they either do not understand or do not want to understand, they hang a label on the originator of the idea. From their meagre educational experience, the worst label they can think of is "Republican".

While I don't like Republicans, I like Democrats even less, although they both have the same goal in mind - Big Government. But from my point of view, the intellectual dishonesty of the Democrats, because they are dominated by socialists, is a little more overbearing than that of Republicans, even neo-cons.

Oh well, in this particular case, I don't think that I would ever be able to change the mind. There has been too much damage to salvage anything.

posted in Libertarianism - 16 replies

militarism and tyranny

2005-09-24T03:18:45Z

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp

"Obviously, the Third Amendment has little relevance today. But what is relevant for us today is the mindset that underlay the passage of that amendment — a mindset of deep antipathy toward militarism and standing armies. Our ancestors’ fierce opposition to a powerful military force was consistent with their overall philosophy that guided the formation of the Constitution and the passage of the Bill of Rights.

While the Framers understood the need for a federal government, what concerned them was the possibility that such a government would become a worse menace than no government at all. Their recent experience with the British government — which of course had been their government and against which they had taken up arms — had reinforced what they had learned through their study of history: that the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of a people was their own government. "

The second amendment makes so much sense when viewed from the perspective of our founding fathers legitimate distrust of standing armies.

posted in Libertarianism - 31 replies

Comming to a highway patrol near you

2005-09-16T20:28:55Z

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=89924

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

new terms for liberals and conservitives

2005-09-14T23:50:07Z

Oh my god it is impossible to speak to these people. I have tried but it's apparent that they have corks in their ears. They're apparently not even trying to reason with me, most of them just parrot what they heard somewhere else.

Liberal = Disengenous
They clearly want to you to think they mean well and their ideas sound wonderful but the moment you start asking questions they start getting really irrational. Like asking how in the world you would fund said project they would reply that obviously don't care about people and would just rather they starve. On a surface level one might conclude that a Liberal is just a well meaning twit who just hasn't put any thought into his ideas. The reality often is that they are afraid of a world where people must be responsible for their own lives and actions. Unfortunately this is a lousy platform so they have to guise it in the cloak of "the public good".

Conservative = Moron
i can sum up old republicans in one sentence: "Sure you can keep your money but we need to know how you spend it and who you're dating." new republicans are similarly simple: "Sorry we need that money to prove evolution is wrong and we still want to know who you're dating." I realize that religion, science and politics will never be separated, but the last time we let the church dictate scientific research we were jailing astronomers for announcing the earth rotated around the sun.

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

New London homeowners slapped with eviction notices

2005-09-13T22:30:17Z

This land ain't your land
This land ain't my land
It's Uncle Sam's land
So just fuck off, man

Just the beginning...

Despite Connecticut governor's moratorium on eminent domain, city pushes vacate order

---------------------------------------------------------------------Posted: September 12, 2005
10:50 p.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Despite Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell's suggested moratorium on eminent domain cases in the state, pending the consideration of new legislation restriction property seizures by local governments, the city of New London has issued eviction notices to homeowners who lost their case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Kelo v. the City of New London ruling.

"They have sent us eviction letters and have given us 90 days to vacate," homeowner Michael Cristofaro told WND. "As further insult to injury, they are requiring us to send them $600-a-month rent."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

plausible future of media

2005-09-02T05:29:15Z

http://www.broom.org/epic/

posted in Libertarianism - 0 replies

music v guns

2005-08-29T02:28:08Z

http://www.music-versus-guns.org

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply

Greens go Libertarian (and dont even know it)

2005-08-22T07:25:01Z

http://www.terrapass.com

Check this out. The idea is absolutely brilliant, and it couldnt possibly be a more libertarian solution to the problem of co2 emissions.

posted in Libertarianism - 10 replies

Eugene V. Debs!

2005-08-18T00:23:22Z

If you don't know about this guy you should. This guy TOTALLY rocked. I'd like to see another like him come along today and take the blinders off off all of the brainless "sheeple" everywhere. He ran for President from prison and.....well read the story!

http://www.eugenevdebs.com/

Swaz

卐

posted in Libertarianism - 17 replies

The free market has spoken, US science education is undesirable, now China is catching up in science

2005-07-27T16:04:01Z

Private industry has chosen to hire scientists in India and China, thus students in America have begun to show less interest in the sciences in college.

Now China, with their planned economy, is set to catch up to America.

The US really should have kept these high end jobs here and plowed a lot more funding into science education... but since we have not, now everyone of consequence agrees that we're losing our lead.

The free market has failed us again.

http://www.nber.org/papers/W11457

http://www.dailybrowse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=1

Contributed by editorone
Tuesday, 26 July 2005

According to a working paper of the National Bureau of Economic Research, rapid development of a science and technology base by populous Asian countries soon may threaten the economic position of the United States. Not only is the U.S. losing ground in high technology exports, but its very capacity to develop new technologies is declining rapidly with respect to the rest of the world. According to Richard Freeman, the paper's author, the sheer population of Asian countries may allow them to train more scientists and engineers than the U.S. while devoting a smaller share of their economy to science and technology.

Over a decade ago, Japan exceeded the United States in technology-based competitiveness. Since then, the two nations have run neck and neck while China surged upward. From 1993 to 2003, China more than doubled its competitiveness by measures of Georgia Tech’s Technology Policy and Assessment Center. Since 1999, China has particularly excelled in two input indicators to the measure - its production of scientists and engineers and its capacity to manufacture technology-based products.

The phenomenal growth of China's industrial base has been widely publicized, but Freeman focuses on what is perhaps the more important long-term indicator of a nation's prosperity - its re-investment in science and technology education.

In 1970, when over half of the world's science and engineering doctorates were minted in the U.S., China granted virtually none. The U.S. dominated both the high technology and general world economy in the following decades, but the two country's investments in their technological infrastructure took divergent courses. By 2000, only 17% of bachelor's degrees granted in the United States were in natural sciences and engineering versus the worldwide average of 27%. China was already issuing 52% percent of its bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. Today Asia grants more science and engineering doctorates than the United States. By 2010, Freeman estimates that China alone will grant more than the U.S.

These changes translate directly into an impact on the economy since technology products represent a larger share of our exports than imports. They also drive a feedback loop as more U.S. technology jobs are outsourced to Asian countries, discouraging U.S. students from pursuing science and engineering. Freeman concludes that research and techological activity and production are moving to China because China is graduating huge numbers of scientists and engineers.

posted in Libertarianism - 1 reply