From a working reporter for the Louisville, Ky. newspaper:

http://libertyforsale.com/?p=91

He takes the press to task.

Republicans and Bush know they are at fault, and like the article published earlier this morning, they are distracting the media from the truth. Of course the blind media follow their lead. It's funny:
As much as the majority of media is thought to be more left, you would think they would be doing their best to follow the war more closely, but instead they just run with what the Republicans want them to do. This is disturbing how much power this particular party is getting.

My Fellow Americans,

The Iraq War is a travesty that has so far 1,637 U.S soliders dead for a phony accusation that Saddam Huessin had unconventional weapons in Iraq and a country that never posed a threat to the United States. The Bush Administration is trying to cover up their mistakes through control of the media like CNN and Fox News. Bush Sympthizers like Sean Hannity and Michael Medved are dominating the radio waves, so the bush administration won't have to worry about being responsible for their mistakes. The Republicans call people who oppose the War in Iraq "Anti-American". Let me ask those Republican talk show hosts what so anti-american about having your own opinion?. our rights are protected by the first admendment of the constitution as much as their opinions are. We need to pull out of Iraq and bring the troops back home.

Friends, Romans, countrymen!

I ask you,

"Why is it we are in Iraq? Whatever happened to Osama, or protecting our Freedoms?"

Iraq isn't one of our states, nor do they wish to be a part of us. The sacrifice is lost.

I believe the fight to be two-sided. While it is true the Bush administration has tried to cover their tracks and manipulate the media, it is also true the mainstream media has not given the American audience the full side of the story, but instead has captivated itself moreso on shock-news and the like, reporting that rather than the progress actually being done. Mainstream media is easily manipulative and depending on the point-of-view reported is destrutive for the other.

I'm neither for this war nor agianst it; I just want it to be over.

I agree with semps. I essentially think the media is just out to sell its wares with not much thought for journalistic ethics or other such niceties.

When they touted FOX News as the "conservative" counter to liberal bias in media - my heart sank further.

How about "Truth Media" with journos and editors who just report the facts and leave everything else up to us? I mean, isn't the point of "News broadcasting" just to "broadcast news" ?

Who told them to invite spin into their realm anyway?

And why do we tolerate this bias in media?

Whenever you begin to hear seemingly trivial stories talked about during newscast, after newscast, day after day, take that as a clue: There's most likely something else going on that someone would rather not tell you about. When they blow such ridiculous stories up in the press, there's usually a reason. These are the times when you should seek out alternative sources such as the internet and the foreign press.

If you want real pictures of what is going on in Iraq go to www.michaelsavage.com.

Anyone who says president Bush is controlling the media shows what a conspiracy theory cook they are. Let's get real, the media has played out Iraq and the American people are tired of seeing it because they have an attention span of a flea.

"How about "Truth Media" with journos and editors who just report the facts and leave everything else up to us? I mean, isn't the point of "News broadcasting" just to "broadcast news" ?"

i guess the closest thing we have is to just watch C-Span and watch congress and make up ur own mind about whats going on

N:

Michael Savage appears to be nothing more than a conservative apologist. Try liberty instead.

I agree with Roy. The large media players with the most clout are there simply to make money. Im sure there are a few or even a good number of journalists working with them who are interested in the truth, but I would imagine their stories go through heavy editing and a bit of censorship.

Even though im an American living in the states, I get most of my news from the BBC website. I like their world coverage, but I would pose this question:

Which is better? The media controled by money or media controled by government? I guess it would depend mostly on the government in question, but I hope our hybrid system of both will be good enough in the future.

This post (and this blog for that matter) make be proud to be a libertarian. I've been overwhelmed of late with extremist 'kill 'them all' viewpoints coming from so-called libertarians, and was beginning to believe that I was soon to be politically homeless.

This blog is a good thing. I'm glad you are finally doing this.

I agree that it was wrong to go to war in the first place. Not because we might lose, but because we had not been attacked, were not under the threat of an attack, were not even under the hint of maybe a possible attack.

I've seen a tragic opposition on the side of the left that we as libertarians should not fall into. The left sees this war as bad because it helps Bush and the Republicans if we do well. It's almost as if they're disappointed when we do well in Iraq and foam at the mouth upon the news of soldier deaths. I just hope we as libertarians don't fall in line with this mantra.

I'm all for hearing the truth in reporting, both good or bad whatever the case may be. We attacked Iraq based upon a lie, but that was just a formality. When it's ok to attack another country for something we don't agree with then anything we're told as a reason is just a formality. The simple question to ask is, are we under attack, or are we under immediate threat of attack. If the answer is no, then we have no business concerning ourselves with it.

The government lies to us, that's a given. Just don't fall into the trap of rooting for defeat so that we can point at the Republicans and say 'see I told you so'. Win or lose, the United States attacked another country that was not attacking, threatening to attack or even hinting that the thought was even crossing their mind to attack us. There's no way to spin that in the media.

Actually, it was reported on quite heavily. http://news.google.com - check it out sometime.

I'm anti-war, but anyone who thinks the mainstream media is not also anti-war is a nut job.

I originally supported the war when I believed there were WMD's in Iraq and we were going in under the guise that Iraq was blatently ignoring the U.N.'s agreements. Now that we can see our intel services are obviously too unreliable to depend on for making decisions as important as going to war or not, I hope we can remove our troops ASAP. Though leaving a power vacum to be filled by Al Qaida would be a ignorant thing to do so we can not simply drop everything and head home. Now that we have destabilized the country we owe it to the Iraqi people to at least train a respectable police/military force of their own countrymen. I have left the conservative ranks and fully embraced a libertarian view since the war started, for a multitude of reasons some of which the war has made abundantly clear to me.

"I'm anti-war, but anyone who thinks the mainstream media is not also anti-war is a nut job."

You have no evidence to back up this assertion, you only have the bald-faced lies of right-wing, warmongering Wilsonians like Savage and Limbaugh. Try to form your own views and quit being fed them by talk-radio.

Even Bush's supporters can agree that he is not the best (read smartest/wisest) Republican out there. The media is too diverse of an entity to attack, blame, control, or depend on. Americans never had the opportunity to vote to start the War and are equally powerless to stop it. Neither you nor I can end the blatantly exploited Electoral College next time around or the time after that.

As a Libertarian I have come to feel that the necessary VAST reform America needs cannot realistically happen in my lifetime. After all your effort and my effort and the effort of all the people trying to set things right, we are still here in Bush's world and I feel hopeless that it will change in 2008 or '12 or '16.

Is tax evasion justified because we know that the government will spend our money on causes that we do not support? Should we live autonomously without getting caught at breaking laws that Libertarians believe should not exist? I feel this is the only option in the midst of the very real, modern oppression that my vote cannot, for the life of me, overcome.

If there is a better way, I beg to know.

Homeland Security at work:

http://elitetorrents.org/

"Should we live autonomously without getting caught at breaking laws that Libertarians believe should not exist?."

I know what you're saying Michael. I think most libertarians have felt that way. You feel like you're being swept out to sea and there's nothing you can do. It's hard not to. But just because the odds are strongly against us, that doesn't mean we can't find ways to fight back. Tax evasion is certainly one way. I pay my taxes, but like you, I'm not thrilled with the way they're spent. But of course, isn't that the nature of government? We never end up getting what we bargained for. I already work over five months a year to pay my taxes. I sure don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth. The free market could undoubtably provide for my needs in a much cheaper fashion. But government is creeping into almost every aspect of our lives, and "we the people" are letting them do it. Existence is going to get more and more costly, as our government grows larger and larger. And our freedoms will invariably dissappear along with our money. We already have over 2 million Americans locked up and we're building jails faster than we're building schools in some areas of the country. I would think that our politicians see a future need for all of them. After all, the more power our government gets and the fewer freedoms we have, the more likely people are going to do things their government has told them not to do. How many non-violent prisoners in The War on Drugs" do we have in our jails right now. And they are prisoners, make no mistake about it. You don't arrest criminals when you capture your enemy, you take prisoners. America has been waging war on it's own people for decades. Remember when all of us who drink would have been criminals back in the days of prohibition? Our country derailed years ago, only now it's becoming all too clear we're headed for a bad place. But we can't give up!

I decided a couple years ago I could make a difference. And the way I do that is by being perfectly honest about my political views. And by not feeling intimidated when I know I'm vastly outnumbered by Republicrats. You would be surprised by how many people will agree with you on many issues. Most people in this country aren't huge fans of the government. Most Americans love their country. Problem is, they tend to confuse the two. I feel it's my job to educate people and show them the difference between what's best for a particular party and what's best for the poeple in this country.

A perfect example is my father. He's 70 years old and very set in his ways. He's registered independant, but it's been a long time since he voted for a Democrat. He fancies himself a conservative. And boy did he hate Clinton! He always says Clinton should have been impeached. But when I say Bush should be impeached, he tells me there's no comparing the two. What Clinton did was unforgivable. When I ask him exactly why that is, he tells me that it's because he "stained" the reputation of the Presidency and shamed the country in the eyes of the world. He says George Bush believed he was acting in the best interest of the United States and was fighting the war on terror. But instead of attacking him on his views of the war, I ask him to look at it another way. If the reason Clinton should have been impeached was because he brought shame and dishonor upon the presidency and the country, then George Bush should be impeached for those same exact reasons. He took what could have been a shining example of how a free and just nation deals with a national tragedy and instead, took advantage of the situation to unleash the dogs of war on his long time target, Iraq. It had nothing to do with a war on terror. But the administration wove the two themes together and the American public bought it. At least enough of them. Problem is, the rest of the world never did. And all the respect and admiration they had felt for this country quickly evaporated and turned to resentment and fear. Our country has never been more disliked and feared by the rest of the world than we are right now. George Bush has brought shame and dishonor onto the presidency and the country.

No one had ever made my dad look at it like that before. If it was so important how the rest of the world felt when Clinton was the president, then why isn't it just as important now? He didn't have an answer for that. And that doesn't happen often. But I did. I pointed out the obvious. It was because my dad voted for Bush and he didn't vote for Clinton. It's because George was a good "conservative" and Clinton was one of those evil "liberals". He was allowing his personal prejudices, his political prejudices, to influence the way he looked at the situation.

He's yet to embrace libertarianism, but he no longer says I'm off my rocker to be a libertarian. My one greatest political triumph would be to have my father vote for a libertarian presidential candidate. I don't know if I'll ever see that, but I'm going to try like the dickens. And in the process, I'm going to try to open the eyes of all my friends and family. Even my co-workers know exactly where I stand politically. And they don't think I'm all that crazy either. As a matter of fact, I have a co-worker, originally from New Zealand, that just voted for the first time since he became a citizen of this country and he voted libertarian. And he told me he wouldn't even have known anything about them if it hadn't been for me. And his wife did the same. That is how we can turn the tide. We have to be outspoken and honest. Force doesn't work, so figure out another way. Remember, the keyboard is mightier than the sword. We have to let other people know there are more than two parties to choose from.

I'm so glad that I Googled "Libertarians".
I had been reading blogs written by people who call themselves Libertarian and found myself feeling very alone. The blogs I found are Neo-Cons in Libertarian clothing. Blindly supporting the right-wing will never get us to our supposed goal---less government intrusion in our lives. The right-wing is no different from the left-wing except for which areas (and in what ways) they want to manipulate and control us.

Here's another outrage of the week...
A judge in Indiana told parents that they can't teach their child Wicca because it's not a "mainstream religion." Here's the whole story:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481

Mark Avelino:

That's a terrific story you told about your father and how you met him halfway on his own ideological ground in hopes of getting through to him. I've had similar experiences with my own parents, who are registered Republicans but actually fancy themselves as liberals. I've been working the Libertarian line with them for over 25 years. They despised Bush so much after Iraq that they voted for Kerry in 2004. However, they surprised me by voting for Browne in 2000. That was an important step for them. And while Badnarik didn't get their vote in 2004 (even though they were very impressed with him), the soil is now fertilized and prepared for the day that we can offer a stronger campaign to back our presidential candidate and win more votes like my parents', and perhaps one day your father's.

Congratulations on your recent success, and hang in there. He may surprise you one day.

Welcome, CWI!

Nick:
"Homeland Security at work:
http://elitetorrents.org/"

What do copyright violations have to do with the War on Terror? This is clear evidence that Homeland Security is already expanding beyond its original scope to encompass spying on the very same people it claims to be protecting, using the Patriot Act to avoid individual legal protections.

Elizabeth:
"Here's another outrage of the week...
A judge in Indiana told parents that they can't teach their child Wicca because it's not a 'mainstream religion.'"

America needs the Libertarian Party to build local political machines in every locality in America to get out the vote for Libertarian candidates and start winning local elections as soon as possible. Once these machines are in place, we can then use them to start winning state and national elections and take our country back from Big Brother.

The Republicans have proven that the party in power will always be the party of big government. It's the nature of centralized government.

The only libertarian solution that will bring liberty in my lifetime is the Free State Project http://www.freestateproject.com
Our founding fathers gave their lives for freedom. All we need to do is move to one state for it.

I THINK THIS WAR STOPPED BEING ABOUT IRAQ QUITE A FEW MONTHS AGO. I THINK THE REAL ISSUE IS WHO IS LEADING THIS COUNTRY, OR WHO LOST IN THE RACE TO LEAD. IT HAS JUST BEEN DEEMED A WAR, WHEN ALL PEOPLE WANT TO DO IS SLAM (PARDON THE PUN) THE ADMINISTRATION. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS CONCENTRATE ON OUR SOLDIERS AND THE IRAQUIS DYING OVER THERE. WE ARE AT WAR, SO WE NEED TO DIGEST THAT FACT AND USE OUR ENERGIES IN A MORE POSITIVE FASHION, THEN JUST SLAMMING BUSH OR 'WISHING' KERRY WAS IN OFFICE.
HAS OUR NATION REALLY BECOME SO TRIVIAL...WHAT IS THE REAL MATTER AT HAND? OUR MEN AND WOMEN ARE OVER THERE FIGHTING AND IT IS TIME TO GET THEM HOME. SO LET'S STOP WHINING LIKE A BUNCH OF TWO YEAR OLDS ABOUT THIS ELECTION AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE....A REAL DIFFERENCE.
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

Thank you for responding to my post, Mark Avellino. I will still continue to vote Libertarian and spread the word as I have, despite my current lack of faith in my peers' reasoning.

The story of your father is nearly identical to talks I've had with conservatives. Far too many times have I heard, "Well, that sounds good but I'm still voting Republican." Perhaps one day we will see Republicrat pride fall to the sensibility of Libertarianism, but I fear that time will not come until it is too late to repair the damage done.

I also have had a very hard time speaking about liberty. I was talking to a group of people and they begin speaking about politics. I asked them what form of government do we have and gave them a few choices. Of the three one said we were a monarhy, one didn't know and the other said a democracy. I then pulled out a copy of the constitution and thought I proved to him we are a republic, but he told me that it was a lie and that we are a democracy.

What I don't understand is that we have enough problems back here at home. Why the hell are we spending what little surplus money we have on a country that posed no threat, nor does today. What's the end sum gain of all of this? Even if the troops are successful and we bring 'em home, they'll come home to a country in tatters, with an economy worse off than when they left. Is that any form of a prize to win for them? And for us?

The focus is all wrong. We know it. Bush knows it. No one seems to be able to successfully able to call them on it. I can't understand how he can get away with it. I feel like I'm living in a country of pyschological operations going on all about me. When I took my citizenship here, this isn't what I signed up for. Whatever happened to defending the constitution?

Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. there was not a legitimate reason for invading Iraq.

$

Invading Iraq was not only unnecessary, it was a huge mistake.

http://www.autimaticbuilder.com/1704

$

I have one good idea what the war was about. Oil, many people in power have lots of money in oil, and why didn't we go to Sudan or Saudi Arabia where just as many human rights violations are occuring. In Saudi Arabia they have secret trials and have no freedom of religon but they are the presidents freedom friends and I guess he thinks they have a democracy so it is ok.

Well, to be fair Jake, we get even more oil from Saudi Arabia than we do from Iraq, and we do have a major military presence there. In fact, it's that presence that Osama Bin Laden cited as the primary motivating factor behind his orchestration of attacks on the U.S., including 9/11.

if the war was about oil, then why have our gas prices been through the roof?

The oil companies know we'll pay for it and because of inflation they have to raise the price to make some profit. What people need to do is create some form of protest like a boycott or we need to modify vehicles to switch to alternative fuels such as ethanol.

but if the war was about oil, then bush would be controlling a majority of it...so he would make it cheaper..he's not that stupid, he knows we know he has a huge stake in oil..he would have to make it cheaper just to save face. of course, that is a logical train of thought and no politician is logical

Many elected leaders have stocks in oil, if the prices our higher they make a bigger profit because people will buy it. I don't believe they want to lower the prices I do think some in congress do but not everyone.

I was under the impression that after successful elections in Iraq, the US would begin to withdraw. What has happened to that plan?

I don't understand how anyone can support a war on the basis of false information...it seems that the populace does support the war, as they voted for bush once again.

People are afraid of change...they are afraid to vote out of the two party system. I've been called 'radical' and 'overly optimistic' when I've discussed my libertarian values with republicrats. Even so, its important to get the word out on our so-called radical views of being responsible for your own life, and true liberty.
iberty.

Our troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia I believe to stop Hussein from invading they have not stopped the human rights violations in that country.

Hey Nicole,

Next time you're called "overly optimistic," try reversing the charge. Tell them they're wrong, that you're the only one being realistic, and that they're being overly optimistic. They believe that if the US repeats the same actions over and over again in foreign affairs, just like we always have done, that we'll somehow end up getting a different result next time! By Alcoholics Anonymous's definition, that's insanity.

I went to a class about drugs recently in my school. They asked me my opinion and when I told them the war on drugs was a complete failure many students and teachers agreed. The drug officer did not agree and asked how would I help drug users and pay for their bills. When I told him churches, private organizations, family, and friends could pay, he then asked what happens if they don't and these people die. My response was I guess they die then, I don't like it but I didn't force anyone to take drugs. I convinced many people that day the war on drugs is a failure.

Congratulations, Jake!

I have got a lot of people to agree with me but I have also made many people angry. Before the election someone told me she wouldn't vote for kerry because she heard he would eliminate the department of agriculture, I assured her he wouldn't but it should be done and that started a big argument with many people after I was called a few names that I won't repeate on this blog. I think she will continue to vote republican. I live in a conservative area and have a hard time even debating issues such as this and the war in Iraq.

I tried to go to the www.realworldlib.org site a moment ago and received the following message:

"I am resigning my membership in the Libertarian Party, along with my positions on the LNC and Georgia Executive Committee, effective immediately. After my experiences dealing with the membership, and much of the leadership, of this organization I no longer feel that it has any chance of success.
Chris Farris"

This is unfortunate, and I can tell you that I am not at all impressed with the leadership of the LP either (I re-joined last year and have yet to even receive a membership card or any other acknowledgement). Any thoughts?

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the leadership, I am not a member yet and would like to know before joining.

Jake: As long as you're not saying anything mean or sarcastic, you're not responsible for the reactions of others. They're responsible for their own feelings and reactions.

What you can do, though, is contribute to a cooling atmosphere. When they raise their voices, keep yours low. Stay cool when others get hot. If necessary, say something like, "Let's stop talking about this for now" and give tempers time to cool. My attitude is that my relationships with others are more important than winning every point, every time. Sometimes, you just gotta back off and give it time.

People only change their minds when their heads are cool. When their heads are hot, they're merely in reaction mode.

Mike (and Jake),

I'm always saddened when I hear that someone is leaving the party. However, I want to caution that it makes no sense to blame the party's leadership for our failures. Yes, leadership is important. However, I think it's fair to say that many libertarians place too much emphasis on it.

There are certainly many reasons I'm not happy with the current leadership, but I'm not going to air them here. If you want to know why, read Michael Badnarik's comments about his impressions of the last LNC meeting in Dallas, at http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2005/05/22/impressions-of-the-dallas-lnc-meeting/

The biggest reason our party is floundering is that not enough individual activists have learned how to win local elections on a regular basis. This isn't the leadership's fault. If anything, it's the rank-and-file's fault, because they're the ones who necessarily must work to win those local elections.

Most of it is due to ignorance about how to win an election. Libertarians have won more local elections than any other third party, yet we have a long way to go before we'll be in the same league as the Republicrats on this point.

When I first became a libertarian (1980), I came from the Democrats, where I had had first-hand experience with how one goes about winning local elections. I was 23. When I went to my first LP meeting, I was aghast at how uninformed the people at that meeting were about how to win a local election. I was surely no expert on the subject, but I quickly realized I knew about 1000% more than they did.

That experience led me to abandon the party (and politics in general) for 12 years, while I hid under a rock (metaphorically speaking). I tentatively emerged in 1992 because I was so disgusted by the Republicrats and Big Government. In 1996 I was a candidate for Congress, but again the party had no mechanism for winning local elections (let alone Congressional elections), and I didn't even get 1% of the vote.

Since then, while I've certainly supported our party's presidential candidates, I've gradually returned to my "roots" so to speak. I've decided this year to start speaking out about the importance of winning locally. I'm exploring starting a local chapter of the LP in my county. I've volunteered to help the state-house campaigns of candidates in nearby counties. I'm doing research into the nuts and bolts of what it takes to win locally, and I'm urging everyone else to do the same.

The funny thing is that it isn't hard to win a local election. You just have to know how to do it, then go do it. My goal where I live is to find one or two other libertarians willing to work with me, then to start building coalitions with others in the community on issues of interest to the LP. Over time, I want to build a local LP machine that wins elections consistently. Then, I plan to export my experience to other, neighboring counties, to help spread the word about how the LP can win.

When Libertarians learn how to win local elections on a regular basis, they'll have developed local political election machines in the process. Imagine how much different the next Congressional or Presidential election could be in that district with an active get-out-the-vote machine in place!

I'll bet that Michael Badnarik can count on one hand the number of LP-organized rallies he attended in 2004 that had more than 200 people at them. I doubt that he attended a single rally organized primarily by LP activists that had more than 1,000 people at them.

That's why Michael didn't win in 2004. That's why he didn't get (hardly) any media attention on a national level.

Now turn it around. Imagine that 10,000 communities across the country developed local political machines that started to win local elections on a fairly regular basis. Imagine the number of people such machines could pack into an organized rally, simply because of all the contacts they'd developed in the process. And imagine that the average size of these rallies was 500 people. Our Presidential candidate would have direct access to 5 million people that campaign year. Increase it to 100,000 local political machines, and our candidate will reach 50 million people, with no help from the media at all.

Of course, by that time, the national media would be covering the campaign, because now we'd finally be news!

That's how you win a national election. That's how you build a party. It all starts locally. So don't blame the party's leadership. They can't organize 100,000 (or even 10,000) local political machines. That's our job...yours and mine.

Libertarian TV, I agree with you. I think that there is a lot of work to be done locally. In Missouri our states libertarian party website has not been updated since I believe the start of February. I think I have convinced someone to run for a local office, she is a libertarian but is not a member do I need to convince to become one, and how do you become one? Any thoughts on what she needs to do to win?

Jake, the first thing you and your friend need to do is to educate yourself on how anyone can win local elections. Here are some must-read books. You can find them at amazon.com.

Winning Elections, by Ronald A. Faucheux
How To Win a Local Election, by Judge Lawrence Gray

Also, take a look at:
Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion
By Michael Cloud

which is available at the Advocates for Self-Government website at http://www.theadvocates.org/secrets.html

As for your friend becoming a member of the party, it's pretty easy. If she pays her $25 annual membership fee and agrees to the pledge not to initiate force against others (it's in the LP platform), she's a paid member. She can sign up online at https://www.lp.org/members/newmember.shtml or call (800) 682-1776 to sign up over the phone. Sign up together at the same time, for mutual moral support.

You'll probably have to petition to get her on the ballot, but it shouldn't be many signatures if it's a local election. Check with your town hall for requirements. Also, don't forget to coordinate with your state party's Chairman of Candidate Development or whatever they call the position in your state party.

Identify the major issues your friend will be expected to address in her election run, based on what the voters have expressed are the top issues, rather than on what issues you and she want to push.

Education is the #1 issue in most townships, because the cost has become more than half of most local budgets. I believe that libertarians can do very well in local elections by concentrating on returning control of their childrens' education to parents and suggesting tax breaks for taxpayers who don't have kids in the public schools. See the article on this website about Ben Brandon of Georgia who won his race for county executive a few months ago by promising to eliminate school taxes for the elderly. Click on: http://www.lp.org/fp/article_127.shtml for the entire article.

Once you've got her platform established and gotten her on the ballot, the next step is to start mapping out your plan of action for getting her elected. That's where the first two books above come most heavily into play (although you should read them before you collect even one petition signature). Don't skip any of the steps the books outline. Do them all.

Start identifying and reaching potential supporters among your local electorate. Get to know them. Seek them out. Talk to them. Remember, you don't have to win them over to every Libertarian stand on the issues. Just concentrate on those issues where you suspect they'll agree with you.

You'll find that you'll attract unexpected help as the campaign progresses. Gratefully accept it all, and put the people to work.

You can do it, Jake!

Thanks Libertarian TV

Jake, I just found another book with some great reviews at Amazon that you should consider. It's called, "How to Run for Local Office : A Complete, Step-By-Step Guide that Will Take You Through the Entire Process of Running and Winning a Local Election" by Robert J. Thomas. What's impressive about the reader reviews is that so many of them are people who actually put Mayor Thomas's ideas into practice and won elections with them. I especially like the fact that it's short: just 128 pages. I'm thinking of ordering this one myself.

Hi Jake,

A website is definitely a good idea. I host websites for a living. I'd be happy to help. Click on my name at the bottom of this post. It will take you to my Libertarian TV website. You can contact me from there.

By the way, I just found another great looking book on winning elections, and it's aimed specifically at first-time candidates. It's called, "How To Win Your 1st Election," by Susan Gruber, and it's described as "the bible" of winning local elections. Here's the description at Amazon:

"When this book was first published in 1987, many first-time candidates unabashedly referred to it as 'the Bible.' Now in a new, updated edition, How to Win Your 1st Election is a step-by-step guide to the entire campaign process, from raising funds right through handling election-day jitters. Want to know where to put up signs? What to say at a candidates' forum? How to dress to make the best possible impression? Let Susan Guber, who beat out seven other candidates in her first election, show you the way. How to Win Your 1st Election is an ideal book for aspiring candidates, campaign managers, public relations consultants and students of political science and U.S. government. Written in a clear, easy-to-read style, it devotes entire chapters to topics such as hiring staff, managing the media, creating a public image, writing and delivering speeches, and campaign ethics. What's more, it's one of the few books out there that offers a full, comprehensive look at our country's unique electoral system-as seen through the eyes of an experienced insider. Susan Guber put this information to work for herself in three successful campaigns. Won't you try the same?"

This is yet another short-and-sweet book: 176 pages.

Thanks,
I will talk to the woman who is considering running probably Tuesday and give her this info she will be very happy to get it. She has to find out if the election for these offices she is looking at is for this year or next year. I will probably have her contact you about a website.

Sounds good. Even if the election isn't until next year, start getting your core group together now. The more time you have to plan, the better. Choose one of the above-listed books and make it mandatory reading for everyone involved. The sooner you all get on the same page, the more likely you'll be to succeed.

Guys. I'm new to this blog and I have a bit of a dilemma. I am a 20-year-old and a former neocon who has defected to libertarian politics and I have friends who have a neocon philosophy. I have expressed to them my views on economic and domestic policy and their reaction was that of confusion and almost frightened. My biggest problem however is how to discuss my foreign policy views with them without being denounced as an anti-American traitor. At one time, I was a staunch supporter of the war who would have used such tirades against opponents of the war. I defected to the anti-war position well over a year ago. Any advice on how to address this issue of discussing my non-interventionist foreign policy views with my friends would be helpful.

I apologize if this letter doesn't sound all too coherent.

Tommy, if you want some ideas on effectively communicating libertarian viewpoints, get Michael Cloud's book, Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion. It's available at the Advocates for Self-Government site, which is theadvocates(dot)org. By the way, you didn't "defect to libertarian politics" -- you're simply showing the courage of your commitment to the principle of Liberty.

Tommy: The first step to being a Libertarian is to accept the fact that no matter what, people are going to think that you are a lunatic. I deal with it all the time. My neighbor couldn’t believe that I dared to put three signs in my front yard for "that wacko" Badnarik. I took comfort in the fact that at least 'my' president probably wouldn’t be responsible for the slaughter of 1000s of Americans.

Welcome to liberty, Tommy!

Let me add some other ideas to what has already been suggested.

First of all, you seem to feel that your ex-neocon status makes it harder for you to talk with your neocon friends. Actually, it's just the opposite. You understand them better because you've been there.

Most people believe that neocons and ultraliberals have nothing in common, but it's not true. They have one very important thing in common, and it's something even many of us libertarians share in common with them. That commonality is anger and fear. Deep, resentful, sense-of-having-been-betrayed anger, combined with naked fear, makes a powerful opponent to liberty.

The reasons for that anger and fear are very different of course for each of the three groups I've mentioned, as is the way that the anger and fear is expressed and directed politically. Out of that anger and fear comes a driving need for control. After all, being angry (or afraid) isn't socially acceptable, is it! So the belief arises that if one can gain control, the anger and fear can be buried and never see the light of day again. It's not true, of course, and so the fear and anger are constantly percolating to the surface. Thus, an endless cycle of fear, anger and control is formed.

Liberals express their desire to control in ways that are different from conservatives, but both believe in expressing their anger by attempting to control others. Libertarians are unique in that we believe that anger and fear should be alleviated by exercising control over our own actions and by leaving others free to deal with their own stuff in their own way. That's part of the meaning behind the libertarian non-aggression principle. You are free to do whatever you want with your life, provided you don't interfere with someone else's freedom to run their own lives as they see fit.

Whenever I deal with either liberals or conservatives, particularly when they attack me, I always try to maintain conscious awareness of their ways they express their anger and their fears. I focus on encouraging them to identify and discuss the roots of their anger.

You say your friends were frightened by liberty in foreign affairs? Of course they were! Belief in leaving others alone (liberty) is frightening if you believe that your own anger and fear must be controlled by controlling others. They recognized the implied threat to their worldview, even if they only recognized it on a subsconscious level.

There are two keys to dealing with neocons on foreign policy.

The first is to keep the heat of the conversation turned down low. When tempers start to flare, you must calm them down. The best way to do it is to respectfully tell them that their friendship is more important to you than the issue, and that you'd rather not discuss it while they're overheated. Then, stick to your guns and don't discuss it until they cool down. If they stay hot, leave the room if necessary.

The second key is to focus the discussion on getting the neocons to identify and discuss the roots of their fears and anger where foreign policy is concerned. This isn't easy. They've developed a myriad of ways to avoid the issue. Once you get them to identify the real, deep roots of their fears, ask them how neocon policy will resolve those fears. They'll give you the standard neocon line, of course. Don't be distracted by their attempts to avoid the issue. Keep going back to their worst-case scenario. Make them play the whole thing out. My favorite phrase in this part of the discussion is, "And then what would happen?"

Here's just one way the discussion might proceed. The neocon can't believe that I'm against the War in Iraq and gives all the standard reasons why I should be supporting Bush, suggesting that those who oppose it are borderline traitors. I ask him what the basic issue is he's trying to solve. After some discussion, he decides that for him the basic issue is that terrorism must be stopped. I ask him to tell me how terrorism will be stopped by interfering in other peoples' lives, since interference in other peoples' lives is at the heart of terrorism. He, of course, will try to distract from the point and move on, but I won't let him. I keep coming back at him, over and over, about how can he justify the idea that interfering in other peoples' lives will somehow prevent terrorists from interfering in other peoples lives. Every time he tries to deflect to a different point, I force him back to this point, insisting that I must have an answer.

In other words, stay on the offensive by focusing on what he believes rather than on what you believe. Remember, your goal is to get him to bring his anger and fear to the surface, for everyone to see including himself. Once that happens, keep coming back to making him justify how controlling others will resolve those fears and that anger. You can be confident that he can't resolve his fear and anger that way, because resolving negative emotions doesn't work like that. Those are the kinds of things that have to be resolved internally, not externally.

This two-pronged approach has two major benefits. First, by keeping the emotional level low, it makes it possible for him to change his mind. No one can change their mind when their angry. Second, by focusing on the root causes of his fear and anger, it makes the issue personal to himself, which ultimately is the root of the probelm. Most importantly, it takes the pressure off you to constantly defend your point of view and try to change his mind. You can't change his mind. Only he can do that.

Good luck!

I agree with the need for lower taxes and smaller goverment. However there is a benifit of a large goverment workforce During the normal business cycle of expansion and contraction A large goverment work force acts as a brake During expansion it slows growth actually hurting the economy A point conservatives are quick to point out During times of contraction a large goverment work force slows down contraction preventing a depression I offer a simple proof during the last deprression unemployment peaked at between 25 to 33 percent With goverment jobs now employing somewhere between 18 to 24 percent of the population during a recession umemployment has not risen over 10 percent As libertarians can we accept that as a consequence of reducing goverment to pre New deal levels That unemployment may rise to a quarter or even a third of the population during normal business cycles? Mike Selensky

I think we need to eliminate all the programs very slowly that way we don't have a lot of unemployment all at once, after taxes are lowered and regulations are cut there will be more small business starting and will employ many people.

"... deserve a true accounting"?

Anyone expecting "the media's failure" to effect the accuracy of the historical record of our intervention in Iraq needs to get out of the house more. Even the most cursory look at the media of days-gone-by demonstrates its inaccuracy and thus its unsuitability to render "a full understanding of the impact of war".

For good or ill, the media incites the passions of the moment regarding a subject, such as the Iraq war. I suspect, however, that the "honest picture" you desire will come into focus only after years of reasoned study, informed commentary, and the rotation of the last Veterans of the Iraq war back into society.

Surely the short attention span of the media on all subjects surprises no one. Why then should the media's lack of interest in Iraq concern anyone?

Can anyone tell me if the Libertarian Party is going to sue the democrats and republicans about Michael being kept out of the debate in Arizona. If I remember right the court decision said that we could not debate but could file a lawsuit for money.

I think it was Nevada instead of Arizona

Thanks for the advice.

Now, I have another question.

I am an avid listener to talk radio (mainly to get my blood pressure up or to get a laugh at some assinine comment).

However, I heard one talk show host say that China is a huge threat to us for the following reasons:

1) China has sent money and people to build infrastructure (i.e. - airstrips and other things) in various parts of South America, Central America, and the Caribbean.

2) Some of these people include Chinese police. The problem is that there is no difference between the police and the military in China. He's basically implying a Chinese attack on the U.S.

3) China has bought the rights to Venezuela's oil and might buy the rights to Mexico's oil.

I'm not sure if it's true. But if it were the case, then wouldn't that make it all the more reason to bring more of our troops home to defend against a possible Chinese attack on the U.S.?

I agree with the accusations of not-so-wonderful leadership within the party made on this blog. I could not do better, which is why I'm not running the party, but I'm sure someone could. It took me a year to get my membership card, which does not suggest superior organization. I have bought and paid for bumper stickers which I have never received.
However, Jake, whatever the faults of the party, it does manage to get a very good number of people into office (the leadership probably has something to do with this, admittedly), and adding another member is worth the frustration when it's in the cause of liberty. That's why I'm a member, anyway.

Does anybody know the procedure for absentee voting? I will be living in Austria for the next year. Can I vote in local elections in my old town?

Mike Selensky:
Do we have a Keynesian in the house? I think you use pretty weak anecdotal evidense in your argument. The fact that we had about 25% uneployment during the depresion and 25% of current employment is through the government may seem like an easy point but we have to leave out history and some very good ecnomic models that discount this. If you look at the time right before the great depresion we see a snowballing in government spending , central planning for american business,the raising of taxes and protectionism. All of these things helped us toward the depresion, but the one thing that had most to do with it was the Federal Reserve. I agree with the Austrian school of economics who believe that for every job created in the public sector kills 2 jobs in the private. They also believe that the govrnment creates the buisness cycle by cheap credit issued by the government via expanssion in the money supply or lowering the discount rate. Easy money creates an imbalance in the time structure of the economy. It artificially lowers interest rates below the natural rate and creates an economic boom,particulary in the higher-order captial goods industries.However this boom can't last( federal reserve act passed in 1913,roaring 20's, stock market crash of 1929, Great deprision) As the economy heats up interest rates rise above the natural rate and the investment boom turns into a bust.A recession is inevitable, you add in fdr's policies with the bad polcies that came before and the depression was also inevitable.

I am a British liberal who considers himself pro-market.

I am intrigued by what I have been reading about recently on libertarianism. At first I dismissed it as "right-wing-lite" but now I see that there is something more to it than that.

While I am giving serious contemplation to the philosophy and politics of libertarianism, I do have a few reservations that I would like to share with you all, with a view to getting answers from my friends here on this site. Please forgive me if my questions are naive:

1) If we place national goods in the free markets -like national parks or roads- the owner would have the right to forbid anyone from using or going on their land. Couldnt this lead to a balkanisation of a country through the means of capitalism?
2) If we have completely unfettered markets, including the repeal of anti-trust laws, wouldnt that lead to the mega corporations that coudl restrict genuine competition? Dont the anti-trust laws help maintain competition in the market?
3) Following on from question 1., would libertarianism change the national identity of a country, (more polymorphous and therefore less cohesive?)
4) Some have argued that the developing world has suffered from the imposition of liberal economic principles from the IMF and World Bank which have exacerbated their economic problems: they are being asked to compete in a market that they havent got the tools or human resources to adequately compete in. Is it right to believe that a period of state interventionism should precede liberalisation in order to build up their infrastructures?
5) If the Libertarian Party was elected to the presidency and a majority in the house and senate in 2008, what would be the legislative programme of the party in its first four years. How dramatic and radical do you think such a liberalisation, of both the economic and social kind, would be and what consequences would there be, (initial high unemployment, rapid inflation, foreign investment, exponential economic growth, decerease in crime. etc).

Thank you for any answers provided. As I say I am genuinely interested in this political philospohy but am still coming to terms with some of its beliefs. Any assistance would be gratefully received.

Mike Selensky: I agree with what Matt said in reply to you. The Austrian school of economics has it right. I'd go further and say that you can't trust any of the government's numbers regarding unemployment, inflation, etc. According to the government, inflation over the past 10 years or so has been virtually non-existent in the US, well below 3%. If that were true, it ought to take over 24 years for prices to double. Despite that fact, bread has doubled to well over $2 a loaf, housing prices are through the roof, tripling in some markets, the price of hamburger is up to $3.95 a pound in many places, etc. College tuition is absolutely off the charts. And real estate doesn't even get counted in their inflation estimates.

Unemployment numbers are similarly skewed and misrepresented. According to the Republicans, we've been living in boom times since they took office. Bush made that a cornerstone of his campaign. Yet, except for isolated pockets around the country, most of the country has not experienced the benefits of this massive growth, and many continue to have widespread unemployment or "underemployment". I live in one of the few areas that has experienced massive economic growth...the suburbs of Washington, DC and outlying areas. Clearly, the massive growth in our area is due primarily to the ever-increasing expansion of the Federal government.

Also, please notice that there's a huge flaw in their logic. You wrote, "A large goverment work force acts as a brake. During expansion it slows growth actually hurting the economy." They imply that there are periodic times when the government contracts its labor force, which coincides with the times of free market expansion.

This raises a question. If there are times of government contraction, we should be able to identify them. Name one. That's right, there aren't any. The Federal Government, in particular, never contracts in size. So if the government workforce never contracts, how can it possibly have the effect claimed? Wouldn't there have to be periodic reductions in the size of the Federal workforce to allow the effect they're describing? In other words, what's to prevent the brake from always being "on"? Nothing of course. Essentially, they're saying that riding the brake is the best way to drive the car. In truth as we all know, riding the brake is the fastest way to wear out the brakes, and it does nothing to add to car safety. In fact, it detracts from car safety because it heats the brakes up, making them "sluggish" when going downhill.

Similarly, a permanent large government workforce makes society's "economic car" more dangerous, while apologists pretend that it's actually safer. Thus, Republican Conservatives prove once again that they have no real understanding of how free markets work and of how government regulation and interference undermine human progress.

Tommy: There are certainly many good reasons to bring our troops home. However, before you buy into the talk show host's conclusions about China you should investigate his claims in detail. We do no one any good by leaping to conclusions just because they're appealing on the surface.

Mat: check with your local town hall to find out what the procedures are for absentee balloting in your area.

Van Martin: Welcome to Liberty!

First, putting national parks and roads into the free market, as well as some of the other issues you raised, is not necessarily our top priority in the US. Our top priority is restoring the basic liberties promised to us by our Constituion and Bill of Rights and forcing the government to respect and protect individual rights at all times, thus leading to a massive contraction in government's size and influence. That said, here's my take on your questions.

1) If we place national goods in the free markets -like national parks or roads- the owner would have the right to forbid anyone from using or going on their land. Couldnt this lead to a balkanisation of a country through the means of capitalism?

There are dozens of ways to guarantee access to resources. Actually, many resources in this country are already privately owned. Yet, there is still public access to them. My wife and I spent the past weekend in Virginia Beach, which is a huge public beach coastline completely surrounded on all sides by commercial influences. Huge hotels line the coastline. Yet, anyone can enjoy the sand and surf, and small access ways are provided to reach it. If the local government were to shut down its public beach operation entirely and sell it to the Marriott or Hilton or Holiday Inn or one of the other hotels along that commercial coastline, they'd maintain the public access anyway simply because they know how important it is to their own economic plans. If they were to limit beach access to their own customers, not only would they undermine their own business, they'd also find their competitors on the beach would be dragging them into court for violation of their property rights.

Also, please define what's so wrong with "balkanization." It's a term we hear a lot, but I've never heard a cogent, irrefutable argument as to why balkanization is a bad thing. As far as I can tell, historically speaking, the only people who have lost from balkanization are the leaders themselves.

If you're going to point to the World Wars, I'll retort that they happened because of interlocking treaties, not because of balkanization. The biggest mistake the US ever made was getting involved in Europe's constant, ongoing power struggles, some of which have been justified by fears of "balkanization."

In fact, it's amusing to me that the French just said "non" to the EU, although they did it for the wrong reasons. They think that the EU leads to more free markets. Actually, it'll lead to less free markets. In essence, the French represent the continued balkanization of Europe. That strikes me as a good thing, not a bad thing. In fact, I think the balkanization should increase.

2) If we have completely unfettered markets, including the repeal of anti-trust laws, wouldnt that lead to the mega corporations that coudl restrict genuine competition? Dont the anti-trust laws help maintain competition in the market?

Megacorporations are a product of government. Most people forget that they exist exclusively because they have special government charters: their status of incorporation come complete with all the legal protections they get that average people like you and I can never get for ourselves and our families. I also point to copyright and patent laws, which work contrary to their intended purpose. They were intended to enrich the creators of new ideas. Instead, they grant monopoly status to an elite, wealthy few. Remember this basic truth as you think about these issues, and all will become clear: megacorporations, copyrights and patents are creatures of government, not of the free market.

3) Following on from question 1., would libertarianism change the national identity of a country, (more polymorphous and therefore less cohesive?)

Is this a bad thing? I don't think it is. I live in the US, a world famous "melting pot." Our melting pot seems to have helped us a whole lot more than it has hurt us. If you believe that polymorphous cultures are a bad thing, you're going to have to prove your point.

4) Some have argued that the developing world has suffered from the imposition of liberal economic principles from the IMF and World Bank which have exacerbated their economic problems: they are being asked to compete in a market that they havent got the tools or human resources to adequately compete in. Is it right to believe that a period of state interventionism should precede liberalisation in order to build up their infrastructures?

Libertarians often disagree on questions like this. However, most of us believe that elimination of state interventionism would simply undercut corrupting influence of the powerful in those countries, thus leading to empowerment of the little guy. The thing I think you're confusing is what government's proper role is. Government legitimately exists for one purpose only: to protect and defend individual rights. Anything else it does is a violation of its legitimate purpose, because anything else it does must by necessity violate individual rights. As our first president, George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." If government is reduced in size not for the purpose of defending and protecting individual rights, then obviously there is bound to upheaval and destruction. But if the government is reduced purely for the purpose of limiting it to the protection and defense of individual rights, how can it lead to anything destructive? By the way, I'm talking about protection of EVERYONE's individual rights, not just the individual rights of the rich and powerful.

5) If the Libertarian Party was elected to the presidency and a majority in the house and senate in 2008, what would be the legislative programme of the party in its first four years. How dramatic and radical do you think such a liberalisation, of both the economic and social kind, would be and what consequences would there be, (initial high unemployment, rapid inflation, foreign investment, exponential economic growth, decerease in crime. etc).

First of all, the history of predictions regarding what will happen in the short term in any given circumstance is horribly inaccurate. Economists are well known for their inability to make any such predictions with even a wide degree of accuracy. So insisting that we should make similar projections borders on childishness.

I can say with assurance that libertarians disagree on exactly how to proceed in such an instance. No one knows exactly how the situation would develop.

However, among our top priorities would be the following (in no particular order): reduction and/or elimination of the IRS and the income tax; allowing people to opt out of Social Security; allowing people to opt out of Medicare; bringing our troops home as safely and as quickly as possible from around the world; declaring our intention for free trade with all countries and entangling alliances with none (to quote Jefferson); going through the tens of thousands of pages of federal law and regulation to eliminate everything that is unconstitutional...which would eliminate a huge amount of the government all by itself.

You might want to take a look at what our 1996 and 2000 candidate for president, Harry Browne, said he'd do on his first day in office. You can read the article at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13247

Libertarian TV

Thnak you very much for such cogent and elucidating answers to my questions. It was really interesting to read, and has given me a few things to work on

I just have a few more questions to ask: forgive my ignorance. Many bloggers on this site pride themselves on the USA being a republic as opposed to a democracy. Now I was pretty rubbish at politcal science at university, but isn't the difference minimal? How does this distinction impact on libertarian thought, ie. does this distinction place a constitutional limit on what government can or cannot do?

Also, if a libertarian president were to get rid of income tax, what alternate methods of income would you consider to fund the government's only genuine areas of activity.

Again thanks very much for your help with this. Still thinking this one over, but I am going to go to Amazon and get some reading material on this so I can explore it in even more depth. It has been fascinating, and quite challenging to my existing beliefs. I shall contemplate them at length I can assure you.

Lib TV

Your answer to question 2) really does make alot of sense.

Cheers mate!

Hi Van,

Cheers to you too! Regarding your questions:

1. I just have a few more questions to ask: forgive my ignorance. Many bloggers on this site pride themselves on the USA being a republic as opposed to a democracy. Now I was pretty rubbish at politcal science at university, but isn't the difference minimal? How does this distinction impact on libertarian thought, ie. does this distinction place a constitutional limit on what government can or cannot do?

The real purpose behind referring to the US as a republic rather than a democracy is to deflect attention from democracy, which gets too much attention and too much credit with not enough blame for the problems it causes. By removing the blinders of democracy, it makes it possible to finally see the true value of this country and what made it great in the first place...and it wasn't democracy!

A pure democracy is a country where everything is decided upon by majority rule...including individual rights. One thing you can take to the bank is that, if given an opportunity, the majority will always vote individual rights out the window. Short term expediency will always replace long term wisdom in a democracy.

America is not a pure democracy for several reasons. First, our national decisions are not made at the polls. Rather, our representatives are chosen at the polls, and they make the decisions. Your country's government works similarly, although there are obvious differences. In a pure democracy, every decision of national importance would be made by national referendum.

Second, our president is not chosen by democracy either. Even the popular vote doesn't choose the president. Rather, it chooses electors from the 50 states, who are the ones who choose the president.

Neither is the US a pure republic, in the Platonic sense. A pure republic is government by Plato's philosopher kings, or government by experts in modern parlance. This approach also has many downsides, the most obvious one being that the experts are usually wrong where government is concerned.

Most accurately, the US is a Republican Democracy. In fact, the party of Jefferson was known in his day as the Democratic Republican Party.

2. Also, if a libertarian president were to get rid of income tax, what alternate methods of income would you consider to fund the government's only genuine areas of activity.

Even most Americans don't realize that we haven't always had an income tax in this country. So the better question is, how did this country fund itself before the income tax? The answer is tarriffs.

Further, it's extremely important to understand that 80-90% of the current Federal Government in the US is unconstitutional. If we return to constitutionality in every way, it will eliminate the need for income taxes.

I hope this helps. I'd love to see American style libertarianism take hold in Britain. The little bit I've seen there via the web is mostly unrecognizable to me.

Libertarian TV -

Just out of curiosity, are excise taxes a form of federal revenue only or also state and local revenue?

Secondly, I'm pretty sure that you (much like me) support any government selling most of its assets to the private sector. Am I right?

Thirdly, how high (or low) should tariffs be?

Finally, what do you think of immigration fees as a source of federal revenue? If you support it, how high (or low) should it be?

I apologize if I'm not as savvy about some issues.

Libertarian TV:
I think you are a great spokeperson for the ideals of liberty and I'm glad your getting the word out.If I could add an important part of how this push for demorcacy helped bring in this progressive tax system. Another way that we would raise revenue pre-16th amendement was taxing the State proportionaly based on population. In other words if New York has 20% of the country's population then they paid 20% of the budget that could not be covered by the tarrifs. At this time the Senate was appointed by the States. This system helped to keep spending down because one body of government went to Washington wanting to keep the spending down. None of the States wanted to be the bad guy and have to collect the taxes if the budget became to bloated. The Senators were sent to Washington to hold spending not to bring home the pork.This was before we made Senators elected instead of appointed with the promise that democracy is always better. It was part of a two part plan to bring soclism lite to America.

Tommy: excise taxes exist at federal, state, and local levels of government. As an example, all telephone owners pay a Federal excise tax. However, some states also have state excise taxes on phone service. There are even some local jurisdictions (some localities in Texas would be one notable example) that sometimes charge substantial local excise taxes on telephone usage. Check your phone bills to see how much you're being nicked!

As for selling off government assets...in general, yes. It shouldn't be done all at once, because we'd end up selling at bargain basement prices if we did that. Also, I would not want to, for instance, make selling off the national parks my first priority once we're elected. There are many other priorities ahead of it that need immediate attention. Even if we were to gain complete control of Congress and the Presidency, I wouldn't see it being completed within the first four year. It should be done slowly over time, using a carefully worked out plan. Just as a business doesn't sell assets without trying to get top dollar for them, so also we should try to achieve the same kind of return from selling federal assets. And as Harry Browne suggested, the revenue from selling off such assets should be used to help us pay down the national debt. It might also be necessary to use some of the revenue as part of an overall plan to wean the country off Social Security and Medicare.

Tarriffs should be no higher than necessary to fund the Constitutional requirements of government. I realize that's a bit of a cop-out, but since we don't have hard figures yet on what the level of necessary spending is going to be, it's impossible to answer the question more specifically. Suffice to say it will be a lot less than it is now.

As for immigration...given the restrictions on it right now, the money collected from it amounts to a drop in the bucket. In general, I don't like the idea of ratcheting them up in order to pay for government. The quote on the Statue of Liberty starts out by saying, "Give us your poor..." It doesn't saying anything about preventing the poor from coming in by charging higher fees.

Don't worry about being savvy. The way I learned was by realizing what I didn't know and then finding out. Asking questions is one way (which you're doing). Also at some point you might want to develop the skill of doing the research yourself in order to find out. Now that we have the Internet, it's a lot easier than it used to be!

Matt: Thank you! You're very kind. Yes, I agree that the Constitution does provide Congress with the method of raising revenue that you're describing. I must confess I've had my doubts about how effectively it would keep Congress under control, but at least it would be Constitutional. It would likely also lead to a much lower level of taxation than we currently have.

I'm not so certain as you are that appointing Senators rather than electing them would reduce the levels of pork. The states have proven that they are definitely pork lovers under any circumstances. I don't know that we need to give them even more power. However, there is no doubt in my mind that direct democracy does increase the desire for pork, supplied by political hams pigging out at the public trough. That's life in the ol' pigsty for you!

Libertarian TV:

I've lost faith in trying to beat Republicrats at their own game. Winning local elections is not a victory when I am still robbed of my hard-earned money for another's welfare and incarcerated for growing and consuming my own medicine for my own welfare.

If the LP knows that Libertarianism is right, then is there anything wrong with breaking current laws that the LP does not agree with? I need the LP to condone evading taxes as heroic or I need the LP to condemn this fasion of devotion to Libertarianism.

If the LP cannot support people acting as they would under Libertarian government then I need a reason. But if the LP supports this kind of rebellion, why not preach it?

Michael,

I fully appreciate what you're saying. To the best of my knowledge, the LP takes no position regarding such civil disobedience as you're describing.

I guess for me the question comes down to this: am I willing to live as an outlaw? It's no small consideration. I faced this question in the early 1980's and consciously chose not to become an outlaw in the fight for liberty. However, if you choose otherwise, I respect your choice. I also respect the choice of others who have taken a similar position.

I partially disagree with one point you make. I agree that winning an occasional election is a hollow victory at best. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about regularly winning elections across the country until we are recognized as a major political force at the local level. If we can do that, we will establish the base to make it possible to win on the national level. I don't think this is pie-in-the-sky. I think our chances are realistic.

Of course, not everyone agrees with me on this.

I want to thank everyone on here for giving me advice and answering my questions.

I was just curious. I mention my views to plenty of my college professors (many of whom lean to the left and disagree with me), but my views are still well-received and respected. Meanwhile, most neocons (especially the likes of Hannity, Medved, Savage, and others)have a condescending and insulting attitude toward libertarians while they defend one of the most morally bankrupt presidents in this country's history. How can this be explained?

Tommy, I think your sample size is a little small. There are both agreeable and condescending people all over the political diamond. I live in a liberal town which is home to many very, very condescending attitudes.

Tommy: I agree with Mat about condescension coming from both the right and the left, but I would also add that I see more of it coming from the right. I think it's because they recognize us for the threat to their empire that we are.

Good atricle, and some good comments. I will go to Iraq later this year and will see first hand what is going on. The main article is differet from some of the observations I have made, but I also agree that objective reporting and truthful cooperation with the media is imperative for our government.

I wish you a safe tour in Iraq, Lyn.

I wasn't refering to all conservatives. I hear that the paleoconservatives are somewhat more tolerant about libertarian views (mostly on economic and foreign policy issues and some domestic issues) than the neocons, especially with Michael Medved calling us "losertarians". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Lib TV,

Thank you for recognizing my concern. It can be hard to hold up the Libertarian philosophy in the face of so much opposition sometimes. Even if my faith in the people or Libertarian leadership falters, I still cannot bring myself to support a Republican or Democrat. I will vote for Libertarians both locally and nationally in upcoming elections. I hope we can eventually control local politics, which may be the only practical means of changing society for our cause. Good luck.

I disagree with your fabricated "outrage." Death of a Soldier seems to be the only thing reported. I see no reports on the mission these troops gave their lives for, with only occasinal exceptions. In today's media environment, not finding your death report means you are inept. The DOD web page has this information if you wish it. Try it: http://www.dod.mil/news/casualty.pdf It will take you seconds. Your fabricated outrage seems politically motivated.

I am a Soldier and just joined the Libertarian Party. We'll see how the two mix. Stuff like this is discouraging.

Tommy: I think "tolerant" is definitely the word, but I think there's a wide gap between tolerant and supportive.

"Fabricated outrage" Karl? I assure you that my own outrage against the Bush administration is far from fabricated. However, it's very clear that the Bush administration's arguments about WMDs as justification for Iraq were fabricated. So what fabrication, exactly, are you referring to?

I welcome you to the party, and I thank you for your desire to defend our country. But I also ask you to be more specific in your criticisms.

The fabricated outrage of government media control and lack of reporting of the results of the war. What, is he kidding? Our military is open with this stuff to the point of probably violating good operational security.

I can't imagine being much more forthright about the consequences of war in the reporting. The only consequences reported are the deaths, even if these Soldiers died as part of a successful operation. So, No, I don't agree with the media control outrage. It is far from accurate.

Karl: he didn't claim that the military isn't forthcoming. Far from it. He claimed that the news media has drastically reduced its coverage. That's true.

OK. If the coverage has dropped, it only covers the death, which is what I understood to be the complaint, that those weren't being covered.

So what's your point?

Libertarian TV -

Who would you rank the following in order from most anti-libertarian: neocons, paleoconservatives, liberals, other leftists?

If I had to guess, I would say that it's the neocons that are the most anti-libertarian.

I'd marginally tend to agree, because I think that "neocon" is really just another word for statist with a right-wing lean.

I understand the word "paleoconservative" to mean right-wing conservative with a slight lean toward libertarian.

I understand the words "liberal" and "leftist" to mean essentially the same thing, representing the entire range of liberalism from highly statist liberalism to slightly libertarian-leaning liberalism.

I'm not sure that these terms can be truly ranked relative to each other. What you're asking me to do is to select from degrees of public enslavement. I respectfully refuse the honor of completing such a task.

Libertarian TV -

I understand.

I was wondering what anyone thinks of this European Union. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

The good points that I see include free trade and fairly free immigration between the E.U. nations, the establishment of a pretty strong currency replacing the ridiculously weak ones, and the establishment of their own military that will make it unnecessary for American troops to be stationed there and be brought home.

The bad points that I see include possible loss of national, provincial, local, and individual sovereignty. Also, the possible loss of the distinct cultures of each European nation. Further, the needlessly long European Constitution listing an enormous set of regulations regarding each nation's economic and domestic policies. And, possibly high trade barriers and tariffs on American goods being sold to Europe.

If anyone believes that the European Union is a good idea but needs to make significant changes, then please explain why and how.

If anyone believes that the European Union is a bad idea, then please explain why and how.

If I lived in Europe, I'd oppose it. Centralization of power is always a bad idea. The EU is specifically designed to centralize power.

I also don't think that the Euro will be a strong currency in the long run. I'd much rather hold a Swiss Franc than a Euro, if forced to choose.

I think we should bring American troops home from Europe regardless of whether the EU passes.

Libertarian TV,

My point is that:

"This week's "Outrage of the Week" involves the media's failure to report the actual violence and events in Iraq." Quoted from the web page above.

is completely off base. To what news is the author referring? The Disney Channel? It is on every other news media outlet anytime you open a page or turn on a radio, TV or computer. So where is the failure to report?

Karl: perhaps the word "failure" is too black-and-white, but clearly if the number of media present in Iraq has dropped from 800 to a few dozen there has definitely been a huge reduction in coverage. There have been other changes as well:

(1) Graphic images have been removed, so as not to "offend" the sensibilities of the public.

(2) Names of killed soldiers are either blipped out entirely or mentioned as an afterthought.

(3) The numbers of dead keep on rising, but the media doesn't consider this to be particularly newsworthy.

Now call me crazy if you wish, but I'd call that a dramatic decrease in coverage, considering the fact that we were barraged by the news daily regarding the violence during the invasion. Today, the news is sanitary by comparison, even though the amount of violence is nearly as great as during the war.

Libertarian TV -

I lived in Italy for a year, but I wasn't aware of politics at the time. I was 7-8 years old.

I'm 20 + 1/2. My 29-year-old brother is in favor of the European Union and he's the type who seemingly can't be convinced that it's for the worse. He also can't be convinced that a less intrusive and less centralized government is a good thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Dwight D. Eisenhower state that we should have brought home the troops home from Europe in the early 60's? Personally, I think that Europe has gone from a strong continent before World War I to a spoiled teenager who should have his/her allowance taken away. What I mean is that we should cut off all government foreign aid to Europe... and the rest of the world.

If all of the European nations actually agreed to join together in the European Union, what effect and to what degree would its effect have on the United States?

I personally think that every war we entered throughout the 20th century, most of the 19th century, and our current war in Iraq was unnecessary. I'm not sure what to make of the war in Afghanistan.

I apologize if I'm all over the place.

Libertarian TV,

Names are held until families are notified. Imagine finding out from CNN/FOX/ABC etc. that your husband/daughter/son/mother was killed.

All applicable numbers can be found daily on DOD web page.

Army's dead can be found listed by name, rank place and date of death on Army web page.

The implication in original "outrage" story implies government control. That is the part that is bogus. Networks and media make their own decisions. Give them a call.

Names were held until families were notified during the invasion, too. The difference is that the names were ultimately publicized by the media during the war, but that's no longer true. Your argument is a non sequitur.

Sure, names and numbers can be found on the 'net. That hasn't changed. But that's not what the author was complaining about. He was clearly talking about the major media: national TV networks in particular.

You know that's what he meant. Stop twisting the facts and avoiding the issue.

Libertarian TV,

OK. Tell me the issue I am avoiding?

What facts am I twisting?

Starting to sound like a Democrat.

OK. So if the Libertarian party manages to win any significant election, will you amend the Constitution to modify the First Amendment? Will you specify that in times of conflict the "free" press must report specific information in a specific format? Oh and make sure you use REALLY ugly photos?

Is this not what you are espousing?

You're avoiding the question raised in the article, "While the media has lessened its presence in Iraq to a great degree (dropping from 800 embedded reporters to a few dozen), does the Bush administration or its supporters bear some of the blame?"

You're all up in arms about the article being the "outrage of the week," but you have consistently avoided this question.

As for the first amendment...of course I don't believe in amending it the way you said.

You wanted to know what facts you are twisting. The above is one example. I never even suggested that the first amendment should be changed. Nor was it even implicit in my comments and questions.

Other examples of fact twisting include the three that I cited (numbered appropriately in an earlier post) which you distorted to the point of essentially dismissing them.

You can call me all the names you want, but I'm a Libertarian. I'm not sure what you are.

Hi Tommy,

I'm sorry...I didn't mean to ignore you. My conversation with Karl has been distracting me.

There are three thoughts I would suggest to you:

(1) You can't change someone else's mind. No matter how hard you try, you can't do it. Only they can do it, which means they're always in control. If your brother's mind is closed, don't push it. Bide your time patiently. Your opportunity will arrive one day.

(2) Europe (Western and Eastern) has a long history of warfare and turmoil. A united Europe will be no less so. Neither is desirable for the U.S., but so long as we don't attack them, I doubt that they'll attack us. As Jefferson said: "Free trade with all; entangling alliances with none."

(3) In my opinion the War in Afghanistan was poorly thought out. I think it should have been handled differently. Unfortunately, it wasn't. Given that fact, once we were in there, Bush's worst mistake was to distract the military by switching to Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan. The job I'm talking about is capturing Bin Laden and his lieutenants and bringing them to justice.

Libertarian TV,

I think it is pretty clear that I don't believe the Bush administration bears the blame for the so called lack of media coverage.

In, fact I don't buy the basic premise that their is a lack of media coverage. The cost of the war is readily visible on the daily major media. That is why I call this original premise fabricated. It is simply untrue.

Support the war or not, the idea that it is being insufficiently covered does not pass the living breathig human test.

As far as name calling goes, I agree "Democrat" is a low blow. However, this is the one area where I take serious issue with what I hear Libertarians saying. National defense does not seem to be the party's strong suit.

For those of you who cannot fathom why Bush was elected a second time, it is largely because he does not apologize for America being what it is. He is also proving his willingness to defend our Constitutionally based way of life and our citizens from foreign aggression. I'll give him that much. Other areas are another matter.

Libertarian TV -

It's not a problem.

Although, I was very surprised that the French people (from the left, the right, and others) rejected the European Constitution. Especially when you consider that France was the first country to come up with the concept of a European Union. How do you explain this strange turn of events?

Tommy,

I don't know completely why the French felt and feel the way they do. I don't follow French politics very closely. Sorry.

Karl wrote: "In, fact I don't buy the basic premise that their is a lack of media coverage. The cost of the war is readily visible on the daily major media. That is why I call this original premise fabricated. It is simply untrue."

So you don't think that media reductions of embedded reporters in Iraq by over 90% constitutes a reduction in coverage. OK, if you wish to be blind to that, it's your privilege. I think you're wrong, but it's still your privilege. But just because you make that choice doesn't mean that the author of this blog entry was "fabricating" his outrage as you originally claimed in your first reply. The anger that he, I, and so many others (libertarian and otherwise) feel against Bush and his actions around the world, including Iraq is genuine, not fabricated.

I think that you're the one who is fabricating. The author presented his facts. You didn't like those facts. OK, once again, that's your privilege. But to claim that he wasn't basing his argument on the facts when he clear was doing so is disingenuous at best and disrespectful at worst.

The author NEVER claimed that the war was not being covered at all. He claimed that the coverage had been reduced, not eliminated. You insist on seeing this as a black-and-white issue. For you, there are no grey areas. That's a shame. It severely blinds you from aspects of reality that you apparently cannot even fathom.

You think that Libertarians are soft on national defense. I reverse the charge. I think you are soft on national defense, because you believe that offense equals defense. So does Bush. Advocating violence and being offensively violent toward others who have not harmed you in the name of going after those who HAVE harmed you undermines your own defense. As a result of his policies, we now live in a world that is less safe, not more safe. Invading other countries on the pretext of fighting terrorism is not only offensive, it violates the principles of liberty we Americans (and we Libertarians) hold dear. You think we're justified in doing so. That's your privilege also. But the next time that someone violates our territory...the next time someone violates our sovereignty in the name of some greater cause, you can have no complaint. For they will be using the same justification then as you are using now.

Just out of curiosity, how would we feel if the Red Chinese or the Europeans had troops stationed here in the United States? - We would be ticked off by it and want them out. Therefore, other countries are right to not want any foreign military in their country.

What makes some people believe that opposition to the war means opposition to the United States?

Isn't it possible to believe that you could love your country while disagreeing with your government's policies? - I say yes. Those who say you can't are as moronic as Bill Clinton when he said: "You can't love your country and hate your government." Hell, many Russians loved their country and hated/hate their past and present governments.

Libertarian TV,

A reduction in embedded reporters may very well be a reduction in coverage. I'll grant that possibility.

I still don't buy two things: Lack of reporting of the violence and the Bush administration's responsibility for it.

If you want to know my opinion about reduction of embeds it is because A.) A great number of reporters have gone and gotten their "war correspondent" merit badges and B.) Iraq is a dangerous place that they really don't want to go to. You can only fit so many inside the green zone. Again, If this is what the author believes, call the major media o