For You Libertarian's

Canceled2

Banned
Bush should have listened to libertariansBy RON HART

ATLANTA

Wednesday was Tax Day or, as Obama Cabinet appointees called it, Passover.

Therefore I have given many Tea Party-type speeches of late, and in preparing for them I have come to the conclusion, as I often do, that we libertarians have been right an awful lot.

Libertarians look at things differently than most. Quirky, cantankerous and misunderstood, we do actually get it right. We have about as much power within the GOP as the Log Cabin Republicans, and not nearly as fun Halloween dress-up parties. But, had George Bush and Congress listened to us on the five major areas where they went wrong, we would all be better off.

Simply put, we libertarians say, "Smoke all the meth you want - just do not expect us to pay for your rehab. And don't get mad when we shoot you if you try to steal our lawnmowers to pay for your habit." We live and let live, and we seek only one thing from government: to be left alone.

Using Congressman Ron Paul as the best proxy for libertarian decision-making abilities, let's look at the five areas in which he differed with "W," Congress and the GOP in the past eight years. You decide who was right.

Bush and the GOP first went wrong by spending like Democrats. They had earmarks and the likes of Ted Stevens of Alaska, who was as bad as his Democratic equivalent, Robert "KKK" Byrd, when the Dems controlled the pig trough. Bush never vetoed a spending bill and he let the earmarks flow. He grew the size of government, which had been on the decline since the last real libertarian-style Republican, Ronald Reagan, was in office. Reagan won the Cold War and a "peace dividend" for America. "W" grew government by 40 percent, and Paul fought him at every turn.

Second, Bush pushed for and got the largest entitlement program in modern times, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Rife with drug lobby shenanigans, this bill was the most disappointing thing Bush had done to that point. Paul voted against it.

Next, in a decision that will define George Bush and his legacy, the GOP and the Democrats went into Iraq on faulty intelligence to fight a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Not only did Paul vote against this, he railed against the U.S. "nation-building" there. View it as you will, these days it usually does not take two drinks to get a Republican to tell you that Iraq was a mistake.

Fourth, Paul fought the Clinton/Carter Community Reinvestment Act, which required that banks give mortgages on homes to those who could not afford to pay. It forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to make subprime loans. Bush adopted it and branded it "The Ownership Society," which led to our current mortgage meltdowns and the reason for my last point .

The fifth and most recent bad decision Bush made was to bail out the banks, insurance companies and the auto industry, which allowed Obama to exercise his own predisposition toward socialism. Also, he had no honest accounting mechanism for us to know how our money was spent. In rewarding bad behavior, Bush greased the skids for Obama to take his central planning to unthought-of heights by paving the way for government to pick the winners and losers in our economy. It turns out that the businesses that get the most federal money are the ones most regulated by the government and which have the best bagmen lobbyists on K Street.

Again, Paul was against this, and he was against this stupid stimulus package which will burden each of us with another $3,600 of debt. Our kids are already $37,000 in debt when they are born, and that even includes the denominator increase with all the babies the Octomom spewed out.

Liberals in academia and the media write history to fit their narrative. Some day they will say that Democratic wonder boy Eliot Spitzer did more to provide high-paying jobs for women than any New York governor in history.

Reasonable people have to look honestly at history and see who had the right answers to past issues. If you look at these five major mistakes made by Congress in recent years and where we libertarians stood on each issue, I think you will agree that more government is seldom the answer.



Ron Hart is a Southern libertarian who writes a weekly column about politics and life. His e-mail is RevRon10@aol.com.
 
"Smoke all the meth you want - just do not expect us to pay for your rehab. And don't get mad when we shoot you if you try to steal our lawnmowers to pay for your habit."


That sounds like a great world to live in.
 
I wonder why people dislike libertarians so much? Why do we consider them obnoxious, selfish douchebags, when they write such respectful and well written essays on the philosophical issues of the time, taking all sides into account and coming up with the best solution, rather than simply blindly following their narrow ideology without logic (unlike moderates).
 
"Smoke all the meth you want - just do not expect us to pay for your rehab. And don't get mad when we shoot you if you try to steal our lawnmowers to pay for your habit."


That sounds like a great world to live in.

Yes, indeed. You must be one of the racists that Topspin often speaks of.
 
I wonder why people dislike libertarians so much? Why do we consider them obnoxious, selfish douchebags, when they write such respectful and well written essays on the philosophical issues of the time, taking all sides into account and coming up with the best solution, rather than simply blindly following their narrow ideology without logic (unlike moderates).

We Libertarians are hugely disliked because most people are used to blaming others and pointing fingers to the opposite side for an explanation of why things are wrong. People can't be, or don't want to be, responsible for themselves and are extremely pissed off because Libertarians practice all of those things, which embarrasses the general gullible public.
 
I know a lot of conservatives that would say, like myself, that we 'lean' Libertarian. Problem with that party are the nuts they run and the nuts that support them.

While open to new candidates of any political party, not going to go for any that Stormfront finds acceptable.
 
I know a lot of conservatives that would say, like myself, that we 'lean' Libertarian. Problem with that party are the nuts they run and the nuts that support them.

While open to new candidates of any political party, not going to go for any that Stormfront finds acceptable.

Wow. This is really such a mentally vacuous rationale.
 
interesting post. Does not speak well of Bush. However virtually all those here who claim to be Libertarian or leaning voted for Bush at least once, some twice.
 
No parties openly address the most totalitarian force in our world today: Fiat Currency.

When some people can make money when they want to and others must work for it, there is no stopping a descent to totalitarianism. Currently we see the federal reserve and the banks on a spree of money making, for them and their closest friends.
 
Last edited:
"Smoke all the meth you want - just do not expect us to pay for your rehab. And don't get mad when we shoot you if you try to steal our lawnmowers to pay for your habit."


That sounds like a great world to live in.
It's certainly an upgrade from "Even think about letting your child take Ibuprofen to school and we'll strip your daughter naked and try to put her in jail."
 
I want a libertarian to tell me that people should be allowed to die in the street if they cannot pay for things.

And i don't want to hear "But anyone who is sick can get care in an emergency room". That is true, but who pays for that? The hospital? That is a non argument.
 
I know a lot of conservatives that would say, like myself, that we 'lean' Libertarian. Problem with that party are the nuts they run and the nuts that support them.

While open to new candidates of any political party, not going to go for any that Stormfront finds acceptable.

Libertarians are non pragmatic in all instances. Their black and white purist position can only be achieved if men were not fallible. That being said, the ideology of libertarianism is a more honest aim for a democratic republic to shoot for than the social democracy that Obama wishes to take this country. We conservatives would do well to remember those principles that we share with our libertarian cousins.
 
Libertarians are non pragmatic in all instances. Their black and white purist position can only be achieved if men were not fallible. That being said, the ideology of libertarianism is a more honest aim for a democratic republic to shoot for than the social democracy that Obama wishes to take this country. We conservatives would do well to remember those principles that we share with our libertarian cousins.
Mainline republican conservatives in this country are no more interested in a free society than is the mainline liberal democrat. Conservative Republicans want to tell adults who that can and cannot have intimate relationships with, and until Bowers was overturned, the criminalization of same sex practices was one of the crown jewels in the Republican party crown. Liberal Dems want to demonize anyone that makes, what they consider "too much money". They want to tax hard work and achievement and give those taxes over to people who do not contribute very much to our society. There is no good in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". The problem is only libertarians see the authoritarian strands in each of those models of control. It is not the business of the government to save ANYONE'S soul any more than it is the governments business to reward lack of motivation or bad luck.
 
Implementing libertarian ideas in this current context without reforming the basic totalitarianism of the money system, just gives all power to corporations, and frames government as merely an extension of corporatist power. Libertarianism is no magic bullet. And legalizing weed is one thing, but legalizing meth and heroine is a recipe for disaster. The drug war is also completely absurd. the drug war is waged on americans only, meanwhile, our leaders themselves take payoff from the criminal organizations and gangs that bring in the vast majority of drugs.
 
Libertarians are non pragmatic in all instances. Their black and white purist position can only be achieved if men were not fallible. That being said, the ideology of libertarianism is a more honest aim for a democratic republic to shoot for than the social democracy that Obama wishes to take this country. We conservatives would do well to remember those principles that we share with our libertarian cousins.

Nah, there are plenty that would say legalize certain drugs and behaviors, but not all. Take us out of the roll of 'policeman of the world', but make clear we mean to all, including 'friends.' Let them pony up for their own defense, we'll cut ours back to where we can cause problems for any that want to take us on, but we DO NOT HAVE TO DEFEND THOSE UNWILLING TO CARE FOR THEMSELVES. There are tools that think they can have the gov't just for defense, most I know really want the government out of our bedrooms, the Fed out of schools, ect. Those I know are more 'small/local' government first, but not 'destroy the Fed', but reign it in.
 
Mainline republican conservatives in this country are no more interested in a free society than is the mainline liberal democrat. Conservative Republicans want to tell adults who that can and cannot have intimate relationships with, and until Bowers was overturned, the criminalization of same sex practices was one of the crown jewels in the Republican party crown. Liberal Dems want to demonize anyone that makes, what they consider "too much money". They want to tax hard work and achievement and give those taxes over to people who do not contribute very much to our society. There is no good in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". The problem is only libertarians see the authoritarian strands in each of those models of control. It is not the business of the government to save ANYONE'S soul any more than it is the governments business to reward lack of motivation or bad luck.

That's a canard. Same sex marriage is an issue that crosses party lines as demonstrated in its being overturned in CA, arguably the most liberal state in the union, just this past November. 70% of Americans still oppose same sex marriage. Half of us American's, including me a republican conservative Christian, have no problem with affording the kinds of legal benefits associated with civil unions.

Protecting the meaning of marriage is not asking for government to save anyone’s soul. *eye-roll*
 
For one thing, California voted for Obama by a margin 5 points less than Vermont and 10 points less the Hawaii.

In 2010, Gay marriage is certain to be approved, and proposition 8 will forever be looked at as a blemish of shame in our nations history.
 
Back
Top