How I've Come to Reject Libertarians Even Though I'm for Free Minds, Free Markets

Libertarians, It's my way, period.

I've said for years I'm a Republican out of political necessity, but Libertarian at my political core. In light of recent political events, the Libertarians have shown little regard, even disregard, of the political reality that there's a difference between Romney, a successful capitalist, and Obama, a failed Communist. Their contention Romney and Obama are the same, to even calling them RomBama or something; it varies.

The result of it is I've combined Leftists with Libertarians. Both are ideologues with no use for political realities. There's a reason Libertarians haven't gain a foothold in the electoral process, and it's because their ideas are not acceptable when applied to the extreme they want. It's why Ron Paul is no more successful now as in the 1980's. Visit the Cato Institute site, and there are a number of great ideas. I've been reading Libertarian authors for years, and have embraced those thoughts. The year Bush the First ran for reelection I vote a straight Libertarian ticket.  

We're at an obvious crossroads. If re-elected, Obama plans to double down on his spending. He plans to do another stimulus package; it's the contention of the Left the first failed because not enough money was spent. Obama has stated he wants to nationalize all businesses like he did GM. By the way, GM is facing bankruptcy again.

It's true the Romney economic plan, as does Ryan's, only slows the growth of government, and doesn't actually cut spending all that much to start. An economic projection I buy into is the change in economic policy will slow spending growth to about 3%, and the result of that will be revenues going up to about 6%. It's a good start to changing the direction of our economic problems in the right direction, away from what Greece, Spain, England, Ireland and the rest are experiencing. The metaphor of changing course of a ship applies. It takes awhile. 

Libertarians reject this notion, saying it's the same as Obama's communist policies. Really and truly? Their presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, has about 5% of the vote according to the latest polling. Libertarians will vote for him no matter the consequences and political reality. (Leftists\Dems will vote for Obama no matter the consequences and political reality.) If the election is close, in swing states, that will tip in favor of Obama. Libertarians reject that this makes any difference since there's no difference between the two. This kind of ideological adherence could lend itself to the US becoming a totalitarian State. The political reality is that sometimes coalitions need to be formed to stop a horrible thing from happening.

The Libertarians apparently are willing to contribute to the removal of all freedoms, and the destruction of our constitutional republic, to suit their own ideological needs.

A final note. There's an additional sameness to Leftists. That's intolerance and incivility by Libertarians. Lots of name calling and insults, the kind of thing I experience dropping comments on Leftist's sites. Because I don't agree with them, I'm uninformed, following the herd, can't think for myself, and am stupid. Nice way to make an argument, or convince people to consider their political and economic views. This view is a result of trying to have a discussion with them. I was taken aback when I got the same response as I get trying to have a discussion with Leftists.

In all fairness then, applying their own principals, seeing no difference between Romney and Obama, Republican and Democrat, I see no difference between Johnson and Obama, Libertarian and Democrat; decisions to vote for either Obama or Johnson, "JoBama" will lead to economic, political and social disaster, the finalization of Obama's desire to establish a communist State and overthrow our constitutional republic.

     

Ron Paul on WikiLeaks and Governmental Lying

Questions to consider:

1. Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
2. Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
3. Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
4. Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
5. Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
6. If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
7. Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
8. Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
9. Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

My Political Head Exploded!

I have a very dear friend, confidant and mentor. She supported Obama, and though I can't find it now, she wrote an essay why she supports Obama, and I posted it in this blog before the election. Another view...which I can appreciate if done with civility. Her's was. Can't remember the title so I can't post the link here. What caused the cognitive dissonance is that we were going to and fro on Facebook about politics. There was a quiz, 'What Kind of Republican are you?' I took it, and of course came out Libertarian. I challenged her; there were lots of Liberal positions stated in the quiz, so I figured she would would come out as some Lib RHINO. She scored Libertarian. What??

She said, when I followed up, that if Ron Paul were the face of the Republican Party, she'd vote Republican. What???? If there are two more diametrically opposed political and economic philosophies, I can't think of them. She also said Obama wasn't a Statist. What??? Apparently using borrowed and printed money, with ever increasing taxes to buy and control auto companies isn't socialist. Controlling insurance companies and financial institutions isn't Statist. Nationalizing health care isn't Statist. Using 'environmentalism' to control the energy industry isn't Statist. What???

So here's some Ron Paul (I'm not a supporter of...)

Health Care: Obama wants the government to control. Ron Paul-the key to effective health care reform lies not in increasing government control, but in increasing the American people’s ability to make their own health care decisions. Thus, instead of forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance, Congress should put the American people back in charge of health care by expanding health care tax credits and deductions, as well as increasing access to Health Savings Accounts. Therefore, I have introduced legislation, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (HR1495), which provides a series of health care tax credits and deductions designed to empower patients. I urge my colleagues to reject the big government-knows-best approach to health care by cosponsoring my Coercion is Not Health Care Act and Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Taxes: Obama wants to increase, even floating the idea of a Federal VAT up to 25%. Ron Paul-supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.

Education: Obama is against school vouchers, private education (except for his own kids), and home schooling. He wants yet more massive spending for education. Ron Paul- “First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats. The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in come cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.”

Global Waming: Obama is a true believer. Will not allow nuclear energy, more mining, or oil drilling. He is totally on the side of Al Gore on this one. Ron Paul- Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all. Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Those are some of the biggies. I didn't want to get over long. I got these off Ron Paul's website. I'm still putting my head back together. How a Statist, an advocate of government control of everything, in the process of implementing a government takeover of everything, is not seen as a Statist, and matched to Libertarian ideas... ohhhh, I need a couple Advil.