For foreigners (and many Americans) who don't quite understand libertarianism and the Ron Paul phenomenon. A year away from the presidential election, with the Republican Party in disgrace and disarray, maverick "classic liberal" or "roots-Republican" Paul has as good a chance as any contender of being the party's candidate for President. (He ran twice before, as the Libertarian Party candidate.) From today's Washington Post:

Libertarian: n.
1. a person who believes in the doctrine of the freedom of the will
2. a person who believes in full individual freedom of thought, expression and action
3. a freewheeling rebel who hates wiretaps, loves Ron Paul and is redirecting politics

How to make sense of the Ron Paul revolution? What's behind the improbably successful (so far) presidential campaign of a 72-year-old 10-term Republican congressman from Texas who pines for the gold standard while drawing praise from another relic from the hyperinflationary 1970s, punk-rocker Johnny Rotten?

Now with about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters, Paul set a one-day GOP record by raising $4.3 million on the Internet from 38,000 donors on Nov. 5 -- Guy Fawkes Day, the commemoration of a British anarchist who plotted to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605. Paul's campaign, which is three-quarters of the way to its goal of raising "$12 Million to Win" by Dec. 31, didn't even organize the fundraiser -- an independent-minded supporter did.

When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it's clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.

That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him -- and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

Paul, who entered Congress in 1976 (originally elected on the Libertarian Party ticket but subsequently re-registered as a Republican in the home state of both George Bushes), has been dubbed "Dr. No" by his colleagues because of his consistent nay votes on federal spending, military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere, and virtually all expansions of federal power (he cast one of three GOP votes against the original USA Patriot Act). But his philosophy of principled libertarianism is anything but negative: It's predicated on the fundamental notion that a smaller government allows individuals the freedom to pursue happiness as they see fit.

Given such a live-and-let-live ethos, it's no surprise that at a time when people run screaming from such labels as "liberal" and "conservative," you can hardly turn around in Washington, Hollywood or even Berkeley without running into another self-described libertarian.

The lefty Internet titan Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas penned a widely read manifesto last year pegging the future of his party to the "Libertarian Democrat." The conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg declared this year that he's "much more of a libertarian" lately. Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, Tucker Carlson, "South Park" co-creator Matt Stone -- self-described libertarians all. Surely it's a milestone when Drew Carey, the new host of that great national treasure "The Price Is Right," becomes an outspoken advocate of open borders, same-sex marriage, free speech and repealing drug prohibition. As Michael Kinsley, an arch purveyor of conventional wisdom, wrote recently in Time magazine, such people are going to be "an increasingly powerful force in politics."

Kinsley is hardly alone in recognizing this trend. In April 2006, the Pew Research Center published a study suggesting that 9 percent of Americans -- more than enough to swing every presidential election since 1988 -- espouse a "libertarian" ideology that opposes "government regulation in both the economic and the social spheres." That is, a good chunk of your fellow citizens are fiscally conservative and socially liberal; in bumper-stickerese, they love their countrymen but distrust their government. Anyone looking to win elections -- or to make sense of contemporary U.S. politics -- would do well to understand the deep and growing reservoir that Paul is tapping into.

Though relatively unknown at the national level, Paul is hardly an unknown legislative quantity. A former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, he has at various times called for abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, the CIA and several Cabinet-level agencies. A staunch opponent of abortion, he nonetheless believes that federal bans violate the more basic principle of delegating powers to the states. A proponent of a border wall with Mexico (nativist CNN host Lou Dobbs fawned over Paul earlier this year), he is the only GOP candidate to come out against any form of national I.D. card.

Such positions may not be fully consistent or equally attractive, but Paul's insistence on a constitutionally limited government has won applause from surprising quarters. Singer Barry Manilow donated the maximum $2,300 to his campaign; the hipster singer-songwriter John Mayer was videotaped yelling "Ron Paul knows the Constitution!" and 67,000 people have signed up for Paul-related Meet Up pages on the Internet. On ABC's "This Week" recently, George Will half-jokingly cautioned his fellow pundits, "Don't forget my man Ron Paul" in the New Hampshire primary. Fellow panelist Jake Tapper seconded the emotion, saying, "He really is the one true straight talker in this race."

Yet Paul's success has mostly left the mainstream media and pundits flustered, if not openly hostile. The Associated Press recently treated the Paul phenomenon like an alien life form: "The Texas libertarian's rise in the polls and in fundraising proves that a small but passionate number of Americans can be drawn to an advocate of unorthodox proposals." Republican pollster Frank Luntz has denounced Paul's supporters as "the equivalent of crabgrass . . . not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff." And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."

When conservatives feel comfortable mocking the victims gunned down by Clinton-era attorney general Janet Reno's FBI in Waco, Tex., in 1993, it suggests that a complacent and increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened.

And little wonder. In the 1990s, conservative Republicans rose to power by relentlessly attacking Big Government. Yet the minute they took control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they kicked out the jams on even a semblance of fiscal responsibility, signing off on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and building literal and figurative bridges to nowhere. From 2001 to 2008, federal outlays will have grown by an estimated 29 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The biggest Big Government expansion during the Bush era is the one that Americans now despise most: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, whose direct costs are already an estimated $800 billion, plus an equal amount in indirect costs and 4,000 American lives. Paul's steadfast bring-the-troops-home stance -- not just from Iraq, but Korea and Japan as well -- is the major engine powering his grass-roots success as ostensibly antiwar Democrats in the majority can't or won't do anything on Capitol Hill.

But if war were the only answer for his improbable run, why Ron Paul instead of the perennial peacenik Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic congressman from Ohio whose apparent belief in UFOs is only slightly less kooky than his belief in the efficacy of socialized health care?

Part of the reason is Republican muscle memory. Paul's "freedom message" is the direct descendant of Barry Goldwater's once-dominant GOP philosophy of libertarianism (which Ronald Reagan described in a 1975 Reason magazine interview as "the very heart and soul of conservatism"). But that tradition has been under a decade-long assault by religious-right moralists, neoconservative interventionists and a governing coalition that has learned to love Medicare expansion and appropriations pork.

So Paul's challenge represents a not-so-lonely GOP revival of unabashed libertarianism. All his major Republican competitors want to double down on Bush's wars; none is stressing any limited-government themes, apart from half-hearted promises to prune pork and tinker on the margins of Social Security.

College kids (a key bloc of Paul's support) have seen no recent evidence that the GOP has anything to do with libertarianism. Yet there's no reason to believe that Democrats will do anything useful about the government intrusion that so many young people abhor: the drug war, federal bans on same-sex marriage, online poker prohibitions, open-ended deployments in Iraq.

This is the mile-wide gap in the Maginot line of "serious" Washington politics. Undergrads aren't the only ones weary of war and moralizing, and more interested in exploring new frontiers of technology and culture than in heeding the stale noise coming from inside the Beltway.

More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism. And with the dreary prospect of a Giuliani vs. Clinton death match in 2008, that hunger is likely to grow even faster than the size of the federal government or the casualty toll in Iraq. Ron Paul may lose next year's battle -- though not without a memorable fight -- but the laissez-faire agitators he has helped energize will find themselves at the leading edge of American politics and culture for years to come.

Does this mean that libertarians eschew any state control over any individual rights?

What is the position of libertarians on:
1. taxation
2. laws
3. prison
4. capital punishment
5. provision of basic necessities (food, water, energy, basic access-communication and transport, education, healthcare)
6. poverty
7. rehabilitation of people with mental or physical disorders that make self support impossible,
8. provision for elderly and orphans
9. pedophiles
10. religious freedom

Does this mean that libertarians eschew any state control over any individual rights?No. Perhaps some "paleo-" libertarians think that way, but they're just anarchists in disguise. There are lots of formal definitions of libertarianism, but some of the best practical definitions come from the era of emerging democracy in the modern West:That government governs best which governs least. (Thomas Jefferson) Those who would sacrifice freedom for security will end up with neither... and that's what they deserve. Your right to extend your fist ends at the point where my nose begins.The general principles of the philosophy include:No one has the right to initiate force or fraud against another. Everyone has the right to self-defense, including lethal force if absolutely necessary. Other than that, people have the right to do anything they want so long as it causes no direct harm to others. Indirect harm can be handled by the civil court system. People have the right to form communities and establish their own rules over and above these. But if these communities become so large that dissenters are effectively prevented from relocating in order to avoid discrimination, e.g. in housing and employment, there is a conflict that must be resolved in favor of the individual. Government exists to perform services that individuals collectively desire, but cannot find a way to provide for themselves using non-governmental insititutions. Traditional examples are the court system and national defense. Other obsolete examples such as mail delivery and education illustrate the fact that the need for government services must be scrutinized carefully on a regular basis as civilization and technology advance.What is the position of libertarians on: 1. taxationPeople should pay fair market value for services they receive and service providers should charge fair market value. Only services for which no free-market institution can be devised are the proper province of government. It can be argued that the poor cannot effectively participate in a free market so we should be taxed to subsidized their consumption. This argument fails to classify charity as a service like any other. Americans have always been a generous people and private charities have always performed very effective income redistribution services for a very reasonable price. Americans don't let poor people die from starvation, frostbite or appendicitis. However, private charities do one important thing that government does not, which is "discriminate" against those who stay in poverty deliberately in order to take advantage of their neighbors' generosity. It's very hard to cheat the Salvation Army, but welfare law cheaters are legion.2. lawsLaws are necessary to maintaining order. However, enforcement should focus on restitution rather than punishment when possible. Victimless crimes--acts by and between consenting adults--are an oxymoron. Laws criminalizing indirect harm, such as secondhand smoke or the effect of a topless bar on the property values of neighboring residences, should be approached with caution. A more enthusiastic approach to tort law will resolve most of these problems. We hold the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land, just as it is defined to be. President Franklin Roosevelt began using the Constitution for toilet paper in 1933--providing a frightened population with security at the cost of freedom--and the trend has accelerated since then. Declaring a "war" always frightens people into giving up their freedom, thus we've had a Cold War, a War on Poverty, a War on Drugs, and a War on Terrorism. It can be uncontoversially estimated that at least 80% of the laws enacted since 1933 are unconstitutional. The "checks and balances" that are supposed to exist between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government are a farce, with the Supreme Court as the worst offender.3. prisonIf people cannot be trusted to conform to the basic rules of civilization (the most fundamental of which is that you never have the right to kill someone except in self defense), then they must be restrained from doing us harm. However, imprisonment is currently abused as a racist tactic. The rates of drug use among light-skinned and dark-skinned Americans are roughly equal, yet a dark-skinned American who uses drugs is four times as likely to be incarcerated. And of course it goes without saying that laws against drug use are unconstitiutional because the use of drugs by consenting adults causes no DIRECT harm to others.4. capital punishmentThere is no Libertarian Party consensus on this one. As a small-l libertarian I am opposed to it because it diminishes us all. If you catch somebody murdering your wife and in a fit of grief and rage you kill him, you can be forgiven although perhaps not ever hired as a police officer. But if you go to the trouble of tying him up and dialing 911 through your tears, suffering the humiliation of cross-examination in a trial, and doing your best to be a responsible member of civilization who can tell the difference between vengeance and self-defense, and then the bloody damn government goes ahead and kills him anyway... it makes the government an agency of vengeance instead of justice. Cycles of vengeance are the reason that people in the cesspools of the Middle East are still killing each other over something that was done more than a thousand years ago. Capital punishment is not civilized.5. provision of basic necessities (food, water, energy, basic access-communication and transport, education, healthcare)Yes indeed, free-market capitalism does a fine job of producing all that stuff, doesn't it? If there are people who don't seem to be receiving it, we need to find out why. The ones who are just unlucky deserve charity. The ones who lack skills and talent need to be educated. The ones who are lazy deserve their fate. Private charities are able to make those judgments. Government agencies are not. My wife was a social worker for most of her career and they joked about how so many of their "clients" had become experts at satisfying the rules--rather than at earning a living. So many of our laws have the effect of turning us into cheaters rather than producers. Income tax rules that are downright capricious. Traffic laws that are nothing but revenue generators.6. povertyI think I've covered that. It's unrealistic to suppose that there will never be poor people because, as we so eruditely put it in America, "shit happens." But so much unemployment is due to the very laws that have been enacted since 1933. Labor unions are notorious for barring entry into their trades in order to keep wages high. The same is true for professional "unions" like the American Medical Association and the teacher's union. My wife is a fabulous chocolatiere, but she can't get a license to sell her candy because the big candymakers don't want small-time operators with far better products competing with them. The American Kennel Club is sponsoring legislation in many states that will effectively put small-time dog breeders like us out of business and leave the breeding industry in the hands of the very wealthy and the hated "puppy mills." We have one of the most beloved lines of healthy, well-adjusted Lhasa Apsos in California, precisely because we are a small operation and our dogs live in our house and sleep in our beds. We cannot qualify for the new definition of a "professional kennel" and pay the licensing fee.7. rehabilitation of people with mental or physical disorders that make self support impossiblePrivate charity does wonders. There is no convincing reason that these functions need to be governmental. Since FDR nationalized the charity industry, Americans have understandaby cut back on their donations to charitable organizations. As one taxpayer put it, "You took about 40% of my income last year in direct and indirect taxes, and you used that money to teach illegal aliens to read and write in Spanish, to subsidize corporate tobacco plantations, and to overthrow the government of the most secular, pro-Western Muslim nation in the Middle East. Start using my money more wisely and there will be plenty to go around."8. provision for elderly and orphansSame comment. Government foster-care programs for orphans are so dismally bad that if Dickens were alive today he would be just as inspired to write Olvier Twist.9. pedophilesAnother case of laws arguably doing more harm than good. The laws are so inflexible that an 18-year old person having consexual sex with his or her 17-year-old lover can be branded a "pedophile" for the rest of his life. This actually happened to my friend's son. Governments are large, slow-moving, and incredibly stupid organisms. That is the worst possible entity to entrust with important responsibilities!10. religious freedomAs I said, libertarians and Libertarians regard the Constitution as sacred. Freedom of religion is a guaranteed right in America. Even I, the most outspoken critic of Abrahamism you're ever likely to meet, understand that the solution to this cancer is not to start persecuting Christians, Jews and Muslims. After all, that's what they do that makes them so evil! Nonetheless, religions should not be coddled. Taxi drivers should not be allowed to refuse to serve blind people because their Paleolithic religion says that service dogs are "unclean." If the American community insists that taxation is reasonable, despite all the libertarian arguments against it, then churches should be required to pay taxes like any other business--and they are indeed "businesses"! A national organization like the Boy Scouts, which is the key to lifelong social, educational and career contacts, should not be allowed to discriminate against atheists or homosexuals because it was founded by Neolithic Christians.

The libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party have (unfortunately in my opinion) been identified as beacons of religious tolerance and we've got more religious wackos among us than perhaps any other single demographic. Nonetheless even strident atheists like myself feel nothing but compassion for victims of religious persecution. The annihilation of the Branch Davidian compound in 1993 BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS is the reason that I don't regard the Clinton Presidency as an oasis of rationality in the long sorry sequence of authoritarianism starting with LBJ, the first election in which I was old enough to vote.

This is not surprising.

Libertarian politics are superior to the welfare state/police the world government we have in place.

The founding fathers easily predicted all of the predicaments we are in today, which is why the Constitution was drafted the way it was.

All libertarians desire is the maximization of peace, liberty, and commerce. Not a big daddy government that tries to make everything better but somehow makes everything worse.

Although with the pedophile situation I would leave it in the hands of judges to decide how to treat the situation. As i think they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

It's the deregulation of commerce that I worry about. There can be no freedom if a rich corporate elite can buy more influence than you. There is no freedom of education if you can't afford to pay for it. There is no freedom to persue happiness if you are bankrupt from a disease or accident that medical science has long ago learned to heal.

Nice work Fraggle Rocker.

That was quite a long read, Fraggle, but it was well-explained.

Lately I find myself leaning more and more libertarian. I strongly hope that Ron Paul wins, because this country needs him.

For foreigners (and many Americans) who don't quite understand libertarianism and the Ron Paul phenomenon. A year away from the presidential election, with the Republican Party in disgrace and disarray, maverick "classic liberal" or "roots-Republican" Paul has as good a chance as any contender of being the party's candidate for President. (He ran twice before, as the Libertarian Party candidate.) From today's Washington Post:
Libertarianism is fantasy it advocates an unrealistic pre-20th century world of rugged individualism, with minimal government and an economy based on the gold standard. In studying Ron Paul I came across this quote of his .

“Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society.”

The “freedom” he advocates is a society with no income taxes, little or no government programs for the poor or disadvantaged, and no regulation of occupational safety and health or food and drug standards.

If you are impressed by Ron Pauls anti war stance recall that Milton Friedman, the archconservative economist whose free-market ideology devastated millions of lives of your fellow Americans , also opposed the military draft.

Libertarianism would be fine if we were wild animals, an animal that after birth are equipped to survive with rudimentary support from our elders showing us the basic of survival and then leaving us to roam free . Allow for us to exact from the environment as much as life can provide. Brilliant - but tigers and bears though individually powerful suffer horribly under rapid environment changes they have no social-security-net.

Success through raw competition is no longer viable - Game Theory and Corporate Collusion have already demonstrated that in a truly free market the rich will get richer a lot faster than the poor will emancipate themselves.

Just to nitpick, that's a common misconception. Ron Paul isn't anti-war. He just thinks war should be declared, not be preemptive and be for the right reasons. If we were ever attacked or faced an imminent attack, he'd be all for retaliating with force.

It's the deregulation of commerce that I worry about. There can be no freedom if a rich corporate elite can buy more influence than you. There is no freedom of education if you can't afford to pay for it. There is no freedom to persue happiness if you are bankrupt from a disease or accident that medical science has long ago learned to heal.This is not a common theme in the libertarian literature, but have you stopped to contemplate WHY we have corporations in the first place? The corporation is an invention of government! It was invented as a replacement for the aristocracy, but retains its essence: They cannot be effectively punished, and they distract our attention from the evil being perpetrated by the government.

Absent the bizarre laws that make incorporation possible, how could corporations exist? A stockholder is a special class of proprietor, one who directs the course of an enterprise's business and participates in its decision making, but has NO LIABILITY for its failures, errors, misdeeds, or even its CRIMES! Unlike a true propietor, the assets of a stockholder cannot be seized to pay the debts of his business! Corporations can be run into the ground by greedy, incompetent or sociopathic leaders, and they walk away with millions of dollars while their creditors are stiffed and their employees don't even get paid!

Starting a business and financing it by selling stock is simply a nefarious way to avoid having to pay back your loan if the business fails. Stockholders cannot seize your home, your yacht, your jet plane and your cars to get their money back.

As I say, most libertarians don't think about this, but a true libertarian government would not enact laws protecting citizens from the consequences of their own deeds, and in fact libertarians consistently tout the importance of laws that reinforce everyone's sense of responsibility. (This is why so many of my fellow libertarians are not as uncomfortable with capital punishment as I am.) A libertarian government would not permit the creation of corporations.Libertarianism is fantasy it advocates an unrealistic pre-20th century world of rugged individualism, with minimal government and an economy based on the gold standard.Yes yes, we've all read Ayn Rand and critiqued her work to death. The essence of civilization is humans overriding their pack-social instinct and finding ways to live in harmony and cooperation with total strangers. This cannot be done in an anarchy, but neither does it require the oppressive laws we have today, the majority of which are crafted to benefit special interests rather than the average citizen. The people who write the libertarian literature tend to be zealots with impractical views. The average libertarian-in-the-street like myself simply wants a goverment that respects the Constitution. Since FDR's day, the judicial branch has not been doing its job and as a result the executive and legislative branches have been running rampant.In studying Ron Paul I came across this quote of his: “Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society.”The libertarian movement basically arose in the 1950s, and our arch-enemy was communism. Naturally the "economically conservative" aspect of the movement was more prominent in those days than the "socially liberal" aspect. The Soviet Bloc did not collapse because of its encroachment on individual freedom. It collapsed because a command economy creates a "negative surplus" and after a few decades of scavenging the pre-exsiting surplus and the surplus of satellite nations, no one had any property. The modern libertarian movement is concerned just as much with the erosion of individual freedom as with property rights. Ron Paul is old-guard and has an economic focus. He's not the person I would choose to be our standard bearer, and in fact he and the Libertarian Party parted ways many years ago. He is, after all, running as a Republican, not a Libertarian candidate.The “freedom” he advocates is a society with no income taxes, little or no government programs for the poor or disadvantaged, and no regulation of occupational safety and health or food and drug standards.Income taxes at today's confiscatory level are not required to run a government that sticks to its Constitutional powers. Historically, the United States only levied income taxes during wartime. Income tax is basically income redistribution, and it doesn't even do a noble job of that. While a bit of it trickles into the hands of the truly needy, most of it:Pays the salaries of fifteen million civil "servants" who do nothing but sit around and "administer" each other all day Is distributed to corporate beneficiaries such as the subsidized tobacco plantations and contractors like Halliburton who are value-subtractors--the six-hundred-dollar hammer is old news, remember the fifteen-thousand-dollar washers? Finances pet projects of politicians that benefit a small group of (usually wealthy) citizens but cost an order of magnitude more than they deliver Funds our unaccountable government's attempt to re-launch the Crusades and destroy civilization.If you are impressed by Ron Paul's anti war stance recall that Milton Friedman, the archconservative economist whose free-market ideology devastated millions of lives of your fellow Americans, also opposed the military draft.Milton Friedman's philosophy is controversial and you certainly are not going to find a consensus that he is responsible for the devastation of American lives. The root of that was the Cold War economy, which was artificially pumped up by the "defense" industry. People were earning huge salaries for producing nothing. When Perestroika hit, the economy was so skewed into the war-game fantasy that there were no honest jobs for them to migrate into. I'm opposed to the draft too, as are all libertarians. If people don't want to voluntarily fight the government's damn war, then they are sending that idiotic government a message that that war should not be fought. The idea that Americans are happily sending their children to Iraq to settle a religious feud that is five times as old as America and which none of them could even describe coherently is repulsive. To start drafting children who don't want to join in this psychotic effort would be criminal.Libertarianism would be fine if we were wild animals, an animal that after birth are equipped to survive with rudimentary support from our elders showing us the basic of survival and then leaving us to roam free.Sound bites make good bumper stickers. One could just as easily say that the Nanny State under which we now live would be fine if we were all imbeciles who couldn't be trusted to make our own decisions and work together to find our own way.Success through raw competition is no longer viable - Game Theory and Corporate Collusion have already demonstrated that in a truly free market the rich will get richer a lot faster than the poor will emancipate themselves.You're not giving enough credit for this to the invention of the corporation itself. That was an act of government, performed to ensure that there would always be a level of aristocracy to distance the people who rule from those who are ruled.Just to nitpick, that's a common misconception. Ron Paul isn't anti-war. He just thinks war should be declared, not be preemptive and be for the right reasons. If we were ever attacked or faced an imminent attack, he'd be all for retaliating with force.American libertarians believe that we should first do a decent job of setting up our own country, before we start telling other people how to run theirs. If some people truly want to live in a theocracy, perhaps we should allow that experiment to run its course. The problem with the Nanny State, whether it's at the national level or the international level, is that people learn best by being able to see the results of mistakes. If no one is allowed to make a mistake, Homo sapiens's natural curiosity starts to cause them to wonder whether it's really a mistake.

I'd think the Libertarians better get more voters registered rather than just

talk about what they are going to do all of the time. "The Libertarian Party

is an American political party founded on December 11, 1971. It is one of

the largest continuing third party in the United States, claiming more than

200,000 registered voters".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29

I would be more comfortable with libertarianism if more libertarians displayed some understanding of ecological reality - the absolute necessity of large community level organization in the raising of children and husbandry of land, at any level of human society more technologically advanced than a nomadic tribe.

The reliance on civil law and the tort system for settling of grievances also seems myopic, to me.

The level and size of government necessary for providing what even most libertarians agree are appropriate services - setting up free markets where possible, say - is not all that different from the one we have, proportionately. The gain from practical libertarianism is not in the reduction of government, but its limitation and exclusion from areas of life important to the pursuit of happiness. The cost of impractical libertarianism is the disintegration of civilization into piracy and tribalism, with Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons the dominant economic pattern on the land.

Eventually, if you discuss with them, about a third of all libertarians will come around to advocating privatisation of highways - try it yourself. Very, very few will advocate the revocation of legal "personhood" from a corporation.

I'd think the Libertarians better get more voters registered rather than just talk about what they are going to do all of the time. "The Libertarian Party is an American political party founded on December 11, 1971. It is one of the largest continuing third party in the United States, claiming more than 200,000 registered voters".It's been often suggested that forming a political party was the wrong way to go about pressing our agenda. It forces the libertarian community to dissipate its effort in attempts to reach a consensus on issues that are politically important but don't easily yield to a libertarian analysis, like abortion. Greenpeace and the Sierra Club have had far more success pushing their environmentalist agenda than the Green Party, because they have the luxury of focusing all their effort and money on the things that are really important to them.I would be more comfortable with libertarianism if more libertarians displayed some understanding of ecological reality - the absolute necessity of large community level organization in the raising of children and husbandry of land, at any level of human society more technologically advanced than a nomadic tribe.We recognize the importance of the community in those endeavors, but we have also learned from experience that the optimum size of that community is something far smaller than 300,000,000 people. People in small cities (around 20,000) do a magnificent job of raising their children communally, feeling free to discipline them without worrying about being identified as perverts, and by the same token feeling free to let their children wander and experience life without being on guard for perverts, who quietly disappear without a trace in small communities. But state and federal governments do a simply horrible job of raising our children, and it's hard to imagine anyone seriously suggesting otherwise. The entire government-run educational system is a disgrace, in which kids even give up their fundamental right to safety, and are forced to carry fifty-pound backpacks because the administrative staff who almost outnumber the teaching staff are too busy shopping for politically-correct textbooks to be able to monitor locker use. And don't get me started on the government-run foster care system, I am too close to people who have suffered under its mean-spirited bureaucratic one-size-fits-all incompetence. The Nanny State is the worst thing that's happened to America's children. As for government being a champion of the environment, you simply have to be joking!The reliance on civil law and the tort system for settling of grievances also seems myopic, to me.How would we know? Americans love to sue for punitive damages. Our entire legal system suffers from a lawyer glut.The level and size of government necessary for providing what even most libertarians agree are appropriate services - setting up free markets where possible, say - is not all that different from the one we have, proportionately.First government creates the Frankenstein monster of the corporation, destroying the very essence of the free market because there is no longer a level playing field populated by producers and consumers of roughly equal economic power. Then it spends the next few centuries passing laws to "regulate" corporations, even though it's the corporations who provide the campaign contributions and perks for the people who write the regulations. Not only is none of this "necessary," but it is a drain on society.The gain from practical libertarianism is not in the reduction of government, but its limitation and exclusion from areas of life important to the pursuit of happiness. The cost of impractical libertarianism is the disintegration of civilization into piracy and tribalism, with Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons the dominant economic pattern on the land.Even today's libertarians who are more focused on social issues than economic ones all agree that property rights are fundamental. The concept of "the commons" is left over from the days of feudalism. In general, resources should be owned and managed by their owners, not left in a state of murky communism for cheaters to exploit.Eventually, if you discuss with them, about a third of all libertarians will come around to advocating privatisation of highways - try it yourself.I'd say it's a much larger proportion than that. At least if you poll libertarians who live in big cities where the public highway system has completely failed. Even here in the D.C. region, America's last bastion of starry-eyed European-style social democracy, states are building toll roads.Very, very few will advocate the revocation of legal "personhood" from a corporation.Sound like I've got my work cut out for me then. I'd better start my own website. :)

Ayn Rand lambasted foolish corporate leaders, but she didn't pursue the issue to its logical conclusion. She didn't understand that corporations end up with leaders like that precisely because they are shielded from market forces. (Particularly the railroads she wrote about, which for all practical purposes were nationalized even in her day.)

Fortunately I see in the paradigm shift to a post-industrial economy a natural waning of the power of corporations. The impetus for their formation was logical: the need for huge concentrations of capital for the projects of industrialization. I admit it's difficult to see how transcontinental railroads and other such infrastructural projects could have been accomplished without incorporated "artificial persons." But the resource of the new economy is information, which does not require steel mills and bulldozers to process. New companies are forming on a shoestring, from the savings of a single family, and the marketplace is being reshaped by them. There will always be functions that only corporations can perform, but there will probably be a whole lot less of them and they won't have as much political or economic power as they do now.

What have the Libertarians done besides run candidates for president? Are they involved in local politics anywhere? Do they have any senators or house members?

What have the Libertarians done besides run candidates for president? Are they involved in local politics anywhere? Do they have any senators or house members?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29

Even today's libertarians who are more focused on social issues than economic ones all agree that property rights are fundamental. The concept of "the commons" is left over from the days of feudalism. In general, resources should be owned and managed by their owners, not left in a state of murky communism for cheaters to exploit. Unfortunately, that is simply not possible for many of the resources fundamental to civilization. The air, water, education of children, and public health are examples of commons that require common management for the common good.
People in small cities (around 20,000) do a magnificent job of raising their children communally, feeling free to discipline them without worrying about being identified as perverts, and by the same token feeling free to let their children wander and experience life without being on guard for perverts, who quietly disappear without a trace in small communities. We are now arguing about the size of the governmental agency appropriate for a given governmental task. That is a sophistication libertarians seem blind to, in general.

And perverts don't just "disappear" in small towns, fraggle. Grow up in the wrong small town, and child abuse is an accepted, quietly ignored reality of your life.
As for government being a champion of the environment, you simply have to be joking! Nope. It's the only way to manage a continent-sized river system, for example. Without government, your chestnut trees and passenger pigeons are toast, your migratory birds and Appalachian streams will follow, and your drinking water will be not far behind. Private estates can only do so much, without turning into governments themselves.

Bad government fails, and governments tend to go bad, but that doesn't mean you can get certain jobs done with no government.
But the resource of the new economy is information, which does not require steel mills and bulldozers to process. New companies are forming on a shoestring, from the savings of a single family, and the marketplace is being reshaped by them. You can't heat your house with kilobytes. Nor is information an easily marketed resource- the governmental structures necessary to set up free markets in information will be no less dangerous for being, apparently, overlooked by the new libertarians.

Public libraries would work better. But that's government.

In a libertarian world, like the feudal world of small communities operating under their own rules without big government, the children of rich men will be free. Others, not so much. .

I'm all for letting people do what they want. It's never been done before though and never will be. All Demicans and Republicrates need to do is drop a couple bomb speeches about welfare and the destruction of family values and that's it for the freedom run. The cattle are frightened to easily. It will require force, found outside democracy, and people even more enlightened than the U.S founding fathers to perpetrate it. Good luck with that...

"Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud: ...Now, I'd like to point out an interesting parallel between this common libertarian view of America's foreign enemies, and the common liberal view of America's domestic criminals." (http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=637)

What have the Libertarians done besides run candidates for president? Are they involved in local politics anywhere? Do they have any senators or house members?There were several of them running for city council and mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana. None of them won, but that may have been because there were too many of them running.

I voted against one of the Republican candidates for city council because he was the driving force behind the smoking ban in our city (lots of people did, he lost despite spending more than all the other candidates put together). Anyway, I voted for a libertarian in his place. A lot of people did. But since so many were running, they split their own vote!

"Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud: ...Now, I'd like to point out an interesting parallel between this common libertarian view of America's foreign enemies, and the common liberal view of America's domestic criminals."

Opinion.

- N

There were several of them running for city council and mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana. None of them won, but that may have been because there were too many of them running.

I voted against one of the Republican candidates for city council because he was the driving force behind the smoking ban in our city (lots of people did, he lost despite spending more than all the other candidates put together). Anyway, I voted for a libertarian in his place. A lot of people did. But since so many were running, they split their own vote!

lol classic end result for "individualism". If you want individual liberty(more of it anyway), you must convince the masses or those in power that they will get even more ahead from it. It's always a conspiracy.

I agree. Was it that so many libertarians were running, or some many members of the Libertarian party were running? If it's the latter, that's one of the stupidest mistakes the party could've made.

I agree. Was it that so many libertarians were running, or some many members of the Libertarian party were running? If it's the latter, that's one of the stupidest mistakes the party could've made.
For city council at large there were like three Republicans, three Democrats, and three Libertarians running. If there'd been just one Libertarian, he might have actually won a seat. My wife and I, for instance, both voted for a Libertarian in place of that one jerk Republican, but voted for different ones.

As it was, the Libertarians mainly served to help the Democrats by siphoning away some votes from the Republicans. This resulted in a largely Republican town having a city council much more closely divided than should have been the case (Republican controlled, but just by one vote).

Paul is an interesting guy but he will not even get close to the nom. I think it will be Romney.

I hope it's Romney too, it seems like he would be a gracious loser.

He would beat the cr@p out of Hillary. :D She will continue to show her true colors and self-destruct by the time the election rolls around. Mark my words. You'll see. :)

Recorded for future "I told you so" reference.

LOL! And you are supporting Hillary? If so, this is going to be a FUN pre-election topic. :D

LOL! And you are supporting Hillary? If so, this is going to be a FUN pre-election topic. :D

you do know that with say obama on the same ticket the dems would win. Obama polls very well with republicans. Rommney has no real good choices for vip from the other candidates.

Obama polls well with Republicans? Really? Source?

Obama polls well with Republicans? Really? Source?

it was a late night news show bout a month ago give me some time so i can dig it up. note it was good for a democrat not good overall.

note it was good for a democrat not good overall.

Hrm. Too bad you didn't mention that little tidbit in your original post. Don't bother to look for links then, I can believe that.

However, I have to admit that you just saying, "Obama polls very well with Republicans", seems kind of dishonest.

Hrm. Too bad you didn't mention that little tidbit in your original post. Don't bother to look for links then, I can believe that.

However, I have to admit that you just saying, "Obama polls very well with Republicans", seems kind of dishonest.

well i figure since he is a democrat the for a democrat would hopefully be implied

Paul is an interesting guy but he will not even get close to the nom. I think it will be Romney.
I think it will be Guiliani with Huccaby as his running mate. I've heard rumors they're already working together. Watch the debate tonight to see if they ever attack each other. I say they'll both focus their attacks on Romney, and Hillary.

well i figure since he is a democrat the for a democrat would hopefully be implied

Considering you also implied that enough Republicans would jump ship for their party to give the vote to the Democrats, no, I still think you should've mentioned it.

I think it will be Guiliani with Huccaby as his running mate.

Yeah, barring some major shake-up, it's going to be Clinton vs. Giuliani. I'm not terribly excited about Hillary, but it will be extremely satisfying to watch Giuliani lose. It'll be like a national goodbye to the era of Sept. 11 daddy politics, which we're overdue for.

I don't think enough Republicans will support Rudy. He's a great guy but too much baggage and too liberal for most of us.

LOL! And you are supporting Hillary? If so, this is going to be a FUN pre-election topic. :D

If she's the nominee, for sure. I would probably vote for Biden first, or Kucinich.

I don't think enough Republicans will support Rudy. He's a great guy but too much baggage and too liberal for most of us.

In most election years, I'd agree, but Romney doesn't seem to have the juice to surpass him, and everyone else is a joke...

Romney might surprise us all. He is VERY presidential. I don't think any of the other candidates are. :shrug:

You mean he looks good in a suit? I think we need a little more than that.

No. He seems to have honor, integrity, substance, morals, patriotism, good character, humor, wealth, success, and he LOVES serving this country etc...

The only thing he's lacking for me to support him 100% is Christianity.

No. He seems to have honor, integrity, substance, morals, patriotism, good character, humor, wealth, success, and he LOVES serving this country etc...

The only thing he's lacking for me to support him 100% is Christianity.

good chacater he was accused of abusing his dog. and equating his son's serving his campaign doesn't seem to be patriotic, moral, honorable, or being an act that shows integrity.

good chacater he was accused of abusing his dog. and equating his son's serving his campaign doesn't seem to be patriotic, moral, honorable, or being an act that shows integrity.

Some liberal rag says he strapped his dog cage to the top of his car 25 years ago and we're supposed to care? :confused:

And I'm sorry. I just can't understand what this means: "equating his son's serving his campaign doesn't seem to be patriotic, moral, honorable, or being an act that shows integrity." :confused:

Some liberal rag says he strapped his dog cage to the top of his car 25 years ago and we're supposed to care? :confused:

And I'm sorry. I just can't understand what this means: "equating his son's serving his campaign doesn't seem to be patriotic, moral, honorable, or being an act that shows integrity." :confused:

first abusing animals is a warning sign of someone being a serial killer. Second i forgot the word iraq after serving.

Yeah but Romney doesn't abuse animals. The left is getting desperate to find/create ANYTHING bad about him. He TERRIFIES them. They can only use his Mormonism so long before their hypocrisy shows...:rolleyes:

So you were actually trying to say: "equating his son's serving Iraq his campaign doesn't seem to be patriotic, moral, honorable, or being an act that shows integrity." Sorry. I still don't get it.

No. He seems to have honor, integrity, substance, morals, patriotism, good character, humor, wealth, success, and he LOVES serving this country etc...

The only thing he's lacking for me to support him 100% is Christianity.

Mormonism IS a sect of Christianity, they told me that themselves.

Yeah but Romney doesn't abuse animals. The left is getting desperate to find/create ANYTHING bad about him. He TERRIFIES them. They can only use his Mormonism so long before their hypocrisy shows...:rolleyes:

So you were actually trying to say: "equating his son's serving Iraq his campaign doesn't seem to be patriotic, moral, honorable, or being an act that shows integrity." Sorry. I still don't get it.

sorry have been half asleep when i wrote that what i meant was he equated his sons serving his campaign as equal to serving in iraq.
sticking your dog on the roof of your car in its box for a long car trip is abuse.

Some liberal rag says he strapped his dog cage to the top of his car 25 years ago and we're supposed to care? :confused:

And I'm sorry. I just can't understand what this means: "equating his son's serving his campaign doesn't seem to be patriotic, moral, honorable, or being an act that shows integrity." :confused:

I don't understand why that's wrong, either. The dog probably loved it.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/12-1932/med_dog_box.jpg

Mormonism IS a sect of Christianity, they told me that themselves.

Mormonism is not Christianity. We don't have sects. We have wanabes. Man-made religions. Denominations. Pure Christianity doesn't need/have/honor sects. Non-denominational, Bible-based pure Christianity is pleasing to Jesus. The rest--with all its man-made rules/regulations is not.

LOL about the car. :D

Romney is the best candidate. Too bad he's a Mormon.

Mormonism is not Christianity. We don't have sects. We have wanabes. Man-made religions. Denominations. Pure Christianity doesn't need/have/honor sects. Non-denominational, Bible-based pure Christianity is pleasing to Jesus. The rest--with all its man-made rules/regulations is not.

LOL about the car. :D

Romney is the best candidate. Too bad he's a Mormon.

have you even read the bible?

Many, many, many times. And every day. But I'm more interested in doing His work. And I'm done discussing anything about Jesus here. Wrong thread.:)

Mormonism is not Christianity. We don't have sects. We have wanabes. Man-made religions. Denominations. Pure Christianity doesn't need/have/honor sects. Non-denominational, Bible-based pure Christianity is pleasing to Jesus. The rest--with all its man-made rules/regulations is not.

LOL about the car. :D

Romney is the best candidate. Too bad he's a Mormon.

They call themselves the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints. That's Jesus. If you studied the history of your own religion, you would know that Christianity itself started as a sect of Judaism. Early Christianity was made up of many different schools of thought. You yourself are part of the sect known as Evangelicals.

They call themselves the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints. That's Jesus. If you studied the history of your own religion, you would know that Christianity itself started as a sect of Judaism. Early Christianity was made up of many different schools of thought. You yourself are part of the sect known as Evangelicals.

They haven't used the "Jesus Christ" part in years. They're LDS. I am not an Evangelical. Please do not try to label me. I fit in no catagory. :)

They sure do, that's what they call themselves when they come to my door.

Mormonism is not Christianity. We don't have sects. We have wanabes. Man-made religions. Denominations. Pure Christianity doesn't need/have/honor sects. Non-denominational, Bible-based pure Christianity is pleasing to Jesus. The rest--with all its man-made rules/regulations is not.

LOL about the car. :D

Romney is the best candidate. Too bad he's a Mormon.

protastantism is man made the closest to the orginal christianity are the othradox religions.

They haven't used the "Jesus Christ" part in years. They're LDS. I am not an Evangelical. Please do not try to label me. I fit in no catagory. :)

you talk like an evagelical. you act like an evangelical. therefore you in all honest probably are a evangelical. also all the born-again religions are a sub-sect of the evangelical movement.

you talk like an evagelical. you act like an evangelical. therefore you in all honest probably are a evangelical. also all the born-again religions are a sub-sect of the evangelical movement.

I'm not an Evangelical. I'm not any denomination or "religion". I'm a born-again on-fire-for Jesus Christian. No denomination. No label. Just a born-again Christian.

Sorry to interrupt your little love chat pjdude and sandy, but as this is a Ron Paul topic, I thought I'd mention that he broke 10 million today in Q4 fundraising. :D

... he broke 10 million today in Q4 fundraising. :D

:yay:

Doesn't matter. He can't/won't win.

and for the sake of argument, what are ya gonna do when he does? ;)

Yeah sandy, suppose I agree with you that he won't win the nomination. Hypothetically, if he did, would you vote for him in the general election?

He won't win. I will bet my entire net worth on it. I think the nom will be Romney or Huck (if he gets a makeover). His teeth are repulsive. :(

No, I would not vote for Paul. I would sit out the election. I cannot vote for someone like him. He gives me the creeps.:(

He won't win. I will bet my entire net worth on it. I think the nom will be Romney or Huck (if he gets a makeover). His teeth are repulsive. :(

No, I would not vote for Paul. I would sit out the election. I cannot vote for someone like him. He gives me the creeps.:(

You wouldn't use your vote as a protest against say.. Hillary? Or Edwards? Would having Paul as president really be worse for you than having any one of the Democrat nominees as president?