Thought I'd kick this rolling thread off with Rand Paul's money bomb today.

As of this post, he's raised $982,310: http://www.randpaul2010.com/
BJ Lawson has expressed that he will not be running again: http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2009/08/06/about-whats-next/
Peter Schiff's senate campaign is gaining steam: http://www.schiffforsenate.com/


While the Libertarian party may never take off, it'll be interesting to see how libertarian thought affects the debate, especially in the GOP.

9/23/2009 5:48:04 PM

I forsee Libertarians gaining numbers as Sarah palin and others like her drive non-religious republicans away.

9/23/2009 8:30:43 PM

i wish Sarah Palin would just go away, those that take her seriously are idiots

9/23/2009 8:34:18 PM

She, along with the rest of the "neo-conservative" crowd will likely be the death of the GOP unless they can distance themselves from that wing.


Interesting article on the Ky GOP primary: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26890.html

9/23/2009 10:30:49 PM

"especially in the GOP"

Hey, 2008 presidential contender Mike Gravel, who was a democrat & later a libertarian, did his best to put Hillary, Obama, & all the others to task at the debates in areas like their stances on war related issues. And democratic & libertarian lines can also start to blur when you look at certain chapters of & efforts by ACLU.

Lawson being anti-federal grants to the research triangle, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, & his opposition to federal funding for education kept me from voting from him, but he's a very personable guy, and I've got to give him respect for putting his principles ahead of political party in calling out & not endorsing the republican who is running where he ran last time:

Quote :

"There is another Republican candidate who has declared his intent to contest Price in NC-04. While he was kind enough to seek my endorsement, we fundamentally disagree on the value of the Federal Reserve and its communist, debt-based money. Plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto details how we have been turned us into Wall Street’s debt slaves, and until we correctly diagnose our underlying economic illness, the mad scientists in Washington and on Wall Street are simply making things worse. His defense of this unsustainable system is understandable, as he is a currency trader previously employed by Societe Generale — the French bank that profited handsomely from your (and my) bailing out AIG. Caveat emptor."

Personally, I certainly wouldn't want a libertarian president & libertarian controlled legislative branch in the immediate future, but I'm glad for their presence, questioning of, & limiting influence on republicans & democrats alike.

9/23/2009 10:50:38 PM

Quote :

"She, along with the rest of the "neo-conservative" crowd will likely be the death of the GOP unless they can distance themselves from that wing."

I feel like people like her and Michelle Bachman (MN) are the death of GOP

9/24/2009 8:26:49 AM

Quote :

"Hey, 2008 presidential contender Mike Gravel, who was a democrat & later a libertarian, did his best to put Hillary, Obama, & all the others to task at the debates in areas like their stances on war related issues."

Gravel is only nominally a Libertarian but his presence was appreciated. The Democratic Party hasn't even paid lip service to the concept of smaller government in 70 years so, I think they're effectively a non-player. Now, this doesn't mean that there aren't individual Democrats who might be sympathetic to libertarian ideals.

Quote :

"Lawson being anti-federal grants to the research triangle, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, & his opposition to federal funding for education kept me from voting from him"

Opposition to federal funding is, and should be, a key issue to Libertarians. Federal money always comes with strings attached and, more importantly, is distributed not on the basis of the needs of the end receiver, but on the political power and needs of congressmen. While he personally might oppose abortion and gay marriage, neither of them should be legislative issues for a US Congressman.

Quote :

"Personally, I certainly wouldn't want a libertarian president & libertarian controlled legislative branch in the immediate future, but I'm glad for their presence"

The LP isn't a coherent movement right now. By their very nature they tend to be all or nothing, but still make politically bizarre decisions like nominating Bob Barr (Bob Barr??? WTF???) as their presidential nominee. That is why I feel the near future of libertarianism, if there is to be one, is going to be in small government Republicans and the occasional Democrat (Bob Conley of SC comes to mind) who shape debates, if not legislation.

9/24/2009 8:59:26 AM

I AM ANDREW RYAN, AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU

9/25/2009 10:27:46 AM

I think people overestimate, especially on the internet, the number of supposed "libertarians" out there.

It seemed like there were a ton of Ron Paultards flooding the internet a couple of years ago. Then I realized that they were just incredibly present and obnoxious on certain websites I visited quite often, so it seemed like they were very numerous. When it came down to the votes, he couldn't even go over 10% (8? 7? 6?) in New Hampshire.

Shockingly enough, people aren't drawn to movements centered around fighting the floating value of currency and bickering about whether or not it is proper to allow charities to handle all welfare, or even to have charities at all.

9/25/2009 2:00:25 PM

Don't get me wrong, I am a sort of libertarian (a left leaning one), but I think that if you want people to not be dependent on the government for their needs, and thus create a world where you don't need a big gov., you need to work now to build those non-gov. institutions and make people more prepared for a minimal state.

Federal libertarian candidates make more sense than state-level ones, because the state is more responsive and constitutionally allowed to do more things. It also allows for a safer, systematic peeling back of the layers. First get rid of the most glaring threats to rights and global liberty: militarism and foreign projection. It's a necessary step to the rest and a greater threat to someone's liberty than zoning laws or a tax on soda.

[Edited on September 27, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2009 3:49:34 PM

Quote :

"Shockingly enough, people aren't drawn to movements centered around fighting the floating value of currency"

Some people obviously are. More and more people are waking up to the shit show that is the Federal Reserve. It looks like HR 1207 is going to get through, and I don't think the GOA will be pleased with what they find.

How can anyone not be concerned with inflation, at this point? It's an issue that will effect all of us, and should be getting more attention than it is. The dollar is incredibly weak, so we're already seeing the results. People seem to have faith that government is doing the right thing, but it's making the problem worse by borrowing more and monetizing the debt. If you don't accept that printing trillions of dollars is going to have a substantial effect on purchasing power, what exactly do you think is going to happen?

9/27/2009 6:40:32 PM

Quote :

"Some people obviously are. More and more people are waking up to the shit show that is the Federal Reserve. It looks like HR 1207 is going to get through, and I don't think the GOA will be pleased with what they find. How can anyone not be concerned with inflation, at this point? It's an issue that will effect all of us, and should be getting more attention than it is. The dollar is incredibly weak, so we're already seeing the results. People seem to have faith that government is doing the right thing, but it's making the problem worse by borrowing more and monetizing the debt. If you don't accept that printing trillions of dollars is going to have a substantial effect on purchasing power, what exactly do you think is going to happen? "

Well of course people are concerned with inflation and whatnot, and the reason I'm so critical of this movement is because I actually care about it. I care too much to let it descend into a movement based around something like monetarism, which is the central point for forming a coalition I'd rather not be a part of (b/c it draws too many from the tea party crowd).

I'd prefer to see a more emancipatory vision on social values (full reproductive rights at all levels, not this "well, if a state bans abortion, whatever man, not my state, consitution" shit like you saw in the Ron Paul crowd)coupled with egalitarian-minded encouragement of NON-governmental solutions (or possibly responsible governmental solutions like vouchers) to issues like health care and education. There are plenty of left-minded libertarians out there (look in the anti-war, civil liberties, and drug legalization movements) who all libertarians should accept and form emancipatory-minded coalitions with more instead of forming coalitions with conservatives and the religious right (ala tea parties).

[Edited on September 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2009 10:01:42 PM

Quote :

"While he personally might oppose abortion and gay marriage, neither of them should be legislative issues for a US Congressman. "

Agreed, other than I think that there is room for federal law providing some restrictions on abortion.



^ I think that civil liberty and at least softening of some drug laws are pretty commonly supported by libertarians of all stripes, left and right leaning.

Quote :

"That is why I feel the near future of libertarianism, if there is to be one, is going to be in small government Republicans and the occasional Democrat (Bob Conley of SC comes to mind) who shape debates, if not legislation. "

Exactly, along with the need to force the GOP (and to a small extent, the Democratic Party) to recognize the libertarian wing of the party or risk losing them. For this reason, I'm thinking seriously about changing my registration to Libertarian, as the GOP seems less and less capable of "getting it", and the # of GOP candidates that I actually vote for has become pretty minimal. There are probably even fewer Libertarian candidates whom I would vote for, but I don't really care about sending a message to them, as they're a lost cause.

9/28/2009 12:02:27 AM

Quote :

"Federal libertarian candidates make more sense than state-level ones, because the state is more responsive and constitutionally allowed to do more things. It also allows for a safer, systematic peeling back of the layers. First get rid of the most glaring threats to rights and global liberty: militarism and foreign projection."

I don't know; there are issues at the state level that impact peoples' day-to-day lives as well. Criminal Justice issues, for instance; legalizing (or at least, de-prioritizing) acts between consenting adults is one way to lessen the disproportionate impact of certain policies. Private property rights vis-a-vis eminent domain protections are relevant. And, yes, creating an austere tax policy which encourages business investment and checks spending growth such that individual states don't face crippling budget shortfalls when economic times turn sour.

No, these are not as broadly reaching as changing America's foreign policy, immigration laws, etc. But they're also more achievable changes in the short run, and a way that serious opposition for higher offices can be groomed.

9/28/2009 12:02:33 AM

I foresee this being irrelevant to anything other than internet messageboards because libertarian politicians are universally clowns who don't know how to get anything done in the real world, which is why they thrive on the internet.

9/28/2009 1:09:06 AM

http://www.lpnc.org/

Quote :

"October 2–11, 2009 : Dixie Classic Fair We need volunteers to talk to visitors at the Dixie Classic Fair about the Libertarian Party and our candidates for 2009-2010. Free Fair admission for volunteers! Check the volunteer schedule and then sign up using this form. "

Volunteering opportunity coming up soon if any libertarians in principle want to be libertarians in action. I wonder how much of the libertarianism here is real, and how much is talk. Will you do something like volunteer, or change your registration, or "throw your vote away" for a libertarian to help them build momentum, or donate to the party or a candidate?

9/28/2009 1:22:45 AM

Quote :

"I don't know; there are issues at the state level that impact peoples' day-to-day lives as well. Criminal Justice issues, for instance; legalizing (or at least, de-prioritizing) acts between consenting adults is one way to lessen the disproportionate impact of certain policies. Private property rights vis-a-vis eminent domain protections are relevant. And, yes, creating an austere tax policy which encourages business investment and checks spending growth such that individual states don't face crippling budget shortfalls when economic times turn sour."

Oh, I agree, but as our nation is built right now, on the pillars of corporatism at a national level, it's important that those pilars are broken, or else they will take down our financial system with them, which won't leave you a house to have sex in. And with some of those issues, you have federal laws currently allowing them (DOMA, Kelo, federal drug laws) that are sanctioning state-level tyranny. Not to say their repeal won't still allow states to do those sorts of things, but at least it puts the decision at state level, where, as we've seen in the case of gay marriage, activists can get work done w/ legislation a lot easier.

My biggest challenge is trying to make common cause with groups of people I hate (ideologically, mind you) who make up a big chunk of the whole Ron Paul libertarian movement, namely paleocons and objectivists.

9/28/2009 4:08:10 PM

Quote :

"I foresee this being irrelevant to anything other than internet messageboards because libertarian politicians are universally clowns who don't know how to get anything done in the real world, which is why they thrive on the internet. "

for example? You lumping in Ron Paul?

Id vote for Obama if he would put in the fairtax. Im serious.

9/28/2009 4:15:57 PM

fair tax is a good idea if you like bad ideas.

negative income tax and land value tax are better ideas that economists and not talk show hosts actually approve of.

9/28/2009 4:18:30 PM

Quote :

" Oh, I agree, but as our nation is built right now, on the pillars of corporatism at a national level, it's important that those pilars are broken, or else they will take down our financial system with them, which won't leave you a house to have sex in."

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are bigger fish to fry at the federal level; more fundamental issues with how our government is oriented. I am simply thinking in the tactical sense of where it is possible to achieve more immediate victories and establish credible opposition candidates for federal office. My point is simply this - that A) It is far easier to achieve tangible victories at the state level, although less fundamental, and B) It is important to establish and groom leaders at this level such that they can credibly challenge established incumbents, rather than do as they do now, and provide only a token opposition.

Right now, at best you have the occasional Ron Paul or Pete Schiff, who credibly have a shot at federal office, but most people running on such a platform are, at best, amateurs. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the fact remains - they're not going to get elected, either.) I think by pushing for changes at the local level that advance a compatible agenda, these types of candidates can establish the kind of name recognition and credibility necessary to actually take on the system at the federal level.

This also means putting more pressure on aspects like the primaries, where this can make the difference - things like say, Lawson's defeat of Augustus Cho in the last District 4 GOP primary.

9/28/2009 4:29:02 PM

what dont you like about the fairtax pink? It treats everyone equally. It would also help businesses stay in the states and compete in the global market.

9/28/2009 4:31:48 PM

^^^ what's the deal with negative income tax?

I'd like to see SOMETHING that's less of a clusterfuck than the current system. Maybe something like a hybrid of the Fairtax with a fairly flat income tax, but without all the crazy credits and deductions and loopholes and blah blah blah.

Anything is better than what we have now. What's the worst thing that happens? We don't take in enough money with taxes to cover our expenditures? Shit, we're not even in the ballpark of doing that now. The current system is unfair and needlessly complicated, and it encourages a bunch of bloated government, because is fosters the idea that there are free lunches to be had.



I've thought seriously about changing my registration to Libertarian, but I'm not going to vote for most of them, either. I'll almost never vote for a Democrat--I'll vote for maybe a quarter of the Republicans, and maybe a quarter of the Libertarians. Most of the time, I either abstain or write in "No confidence". Changing my registration wouldn't really buy me anything, and would really just serve as a middle finger to the GOP (which I would take great delight in).

However, I want to run for office someday, and I guess the odds are that it'll be as a Republican...I wonder if it might be better to have a 100% GOP pedigree behind me?

10/9/2009 3:35:48 AM

Quote :

"First get rid of the most glaring threats to rights and global liberty: militarism and foreign projection. It's a necessary step to the rest and a greater threat to someone's liberty than zoning laws or a tax on soda."

It's interesting that you talk about things like global liberty, yet would seemingly have us abandon Afghans to the terror of Islamic fascists.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 10:44 AM. Reason : teh]

10/9/2009 10:37:24 AM

Quote :

"what's the deal with negative income tax?"

The negative income tax is an alternative to welfare/entitlements for the indigent first proposed by folks like Milton Friedman. Basically, instead of all that, the government simply provides an income supplement to people earning below a certain threshold, i.e., the tax rate is effectively negative.

The EIC established under Clinton in 1975 is similar in concept, but it doesn't function as a negative income tax per se in that it doesn't seek to replace traditional welfare, although it does perform the function of supplementing income.

The idea is that it can also function as an alternative to the minimum wage - i.e., instead of distorting labor markets, one supplements income up to a "livable" level. It also seeks to eliminate the perverse incentives of welfare - i.e., where one begins taking home less money if they actually work. The idea is for a smooth, upward transition to working at higher-pay jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Income_Tax

Quote :

"I've thought seriously about changing my registration to Libertarian, but I'm not going to vote for most of them, either. I'll almost never vote for a Democrat--I'll vote for maybe a quarter of the Republicans, and maybe a quarter of the Libertarians. Most of the time, I either abstain or write in "No confidence". Changing my registration wouldn't really buy me anything, and would really just serve as a middle finger to the GOP (which I would take great delight in)."

Changing your registration helps the libertarians by establishing them as a more "viable" party, even if you don't explicitly vote libertarian.

Quote :

"However, I want to run for office someday, and I guess the odds are that it'll be as a Republican...I wonder if it might be better to have a 100% GOP pedigree behind me?"

Just tell them you jumped ship during the "dark years" when the GOP lost its way. You know, now. In that sense you can boost your conservative bona fides.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM. Reason : EIC]

10/9/2009 10:44:11 AM

EIC was established long before Clinton. 1975 I think. Clinton only expanded it. But, then again, so did Regan and Bush I.

Just letting you know!

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2009 10:53:56 AM

^ Yes you're right, I just looked. My bad.

10/9/2009 10:54:56 AM

I vote Libertarian because I, too, yearn for the days when commerce was a matter of trading jugs of rum for beaver pelts.

10/9/2009 10:56:46 AM

It's not surprising that Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul really, are rapidly gaining credibility, as they really have identified the root causes of the recession. The scary thing is what they're saying will happen if we continue along this path - hyperinflation and a severe depression. I'm afraid that they're right. When the world begins to really detach itself from the dollar, which we're already seeing take place, I can see things getting very bad.

10/9/2009 11:51:02 AM

Quote :

"It's not surprising that Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul really, are rapidly gaining credibility"

based on what metrics?

Quote :

"what dont you like about the fairtax pink? It treats everyone equally."

I mean, it has FAIR right there in the title!

Quote :

"It would also help businesses stay in the states and compete in the global market."

There are many more reasons to take your business to Asia right now than our tax structure.

Quote :

"When the world begins to really detach itself from the dollar, which we're already seeing take place, I can see things getting very bad."

1. We've been heading towards this for a while now. Tell me, what currency are things like petrodollars heading towards? Krugerrands?

2. You act as if people give a shit about Austrian Economics. I know heterodoxy is edgy and cool and you can be all smug about it b/c you'll never have to actually carry out your plans, but come on, if your people were influencing the discussion, we'd be talking about using Citibankbucks or oil barrels or GOLD GOLD GOLD as one of eleventy billion currencies (which will eventually coalesce around whichever private banks have the strongest reserves, so much for the end of the influence of big banks!) and not a realignment around the Yuan and Euro.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 1:39:14 PM

Quote :

"1. We've been heading towards this for a while now. Tell me, what currency are things like petrodollars heading towards? Krugerrands?"

Something other than dollars...you have to know this. They're not going to continue accepting a dollar steadily declining in value. Would you?

Quote :

"You act as if people give a shit about Austrian Economics."

Oh, I know they don't give a shit. At their own peril, it appears.

Quote :

"I know heterodoxy is edgy and cool and you can be all smug about it b/c you'll never have to actually carry out your plans"

No.

Quote :

"if your people were influencing the discussion, we'd be talking about using Citibankbucks or oil barrels or GOLD GOLD GOLD as one of eleventy billion currencies"

It wouldn't really make sense to use oil barrels, gold, or anything like that as a currency...so I'm not sure where you're coming from with this. Gold is good because it retains it's value. Sure, it goes up in terms of dollars, but that's due to inflation.

Quote :

"which will eventually coalesce around whichever private banks have the strongest reserves, so much for the end of the influence of big banks!)"

The strongest in terms of security, maybe. Not strongest in terms of assets.

Quote :

"realignment around the Yuan and Euro."

That's entirely possible. At least those currencies wouldn't be getting inflated at an alarming rate. Do you understand why people, internationally, are worried about taking dollars?

10/10/2009 12:09:20 AM