WHAT pro-business principles??? They dont HAVE any.

Today's Republican Party is a total shell of it's former self and bears no resemblance to the party of Goldwater - and if we moved in their FORMER (limited government, lower taxes) direction a WEE LITTLE BIT we would stand to pick up a lot of disaffected votes. There's never been a better time to claim that the major parties are just like each other, but without a product to sell them after we get them to agree on that; nothing matters. Voters will ask us HOW we are going to do this or that, and most of the time, we dont have a answer for them. The LP talks about how we MUST do something without ever actually explaining HOW we are going to do that thing. Time to fill that gaping hole. We have a 3 year opportunity to do just that before 2008.

It's funny when I hear people rapping about how the LP cant "sound like republicans". The LP could do a lot worse than nominating someone in 2008 like Goldwater right now, and probably will. :/

Reagan failed in many ways, but his administration was the first time that government spending decreased in over 40 years - facts here:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/1980-88.htm

Since he is the only actual president to reduce government in over 50 years time, even with his failures in other areas, lets hope the R's are too far gone to ever nominate another Reagan. Iraq is still unfolding, and the full fallout wont be known until the 2006 elections.

Oh, and by the way, I carry the D Walter Expert Shrinking Violet Badge of Honor. So no need to point that out. :D

Actually, Tim, Reagan's tenure was NOT "the first time that government spending decreased in over 40 years." Total spending during Reagan's presidency INcreased greatly from about $600 billion to roughly $1 trillion (and the national debt jumped as well).

Reagan did cut nondefense discretionary spending slightly, but he boosted defense and entitlement spending by much more. Facts here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

The last time total spending decreased was during the Harding administration in the 1920s.

You're quite accurate - I guess I should have been more specific. I thought the "even with his failures" line would have covered it, but I guess not. The failures you mentioned are the failures was referring to, namely, trying to spend the Soviet Union under the table ( and succeeding ) and entitlements.

It's better to say that his was the last Presidency that showed any reduction in *any* area of government, which it did. But what you pointed out is very true, and taken as a whole is not a reduction.

to further illustrate:

"From post WW II until Reagan took office, the total government spending (federal + state/local) ratio had moved straight up, more than doubling, consuming more and more of the economy - from a 22% ratio in 1947 to 44.3% of national income by 1982. The Reagan Era was the first time in 40 years that government did not expand its share of the economy - - in fact, the combined government spending share of the economy was decreased by 4 points - - to 40.5% of national income."

This is the exact reduction I am referring to - which has never occurred again under any Democratic or Republican president.

God, I would expect something like this from Dennis Kucinich, not a Republican. You used to be able to count on them to be at least more conservative than the democratic party. I guess those days are over.

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story248.htm
"Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005"(S. 1873)
This bill goes too far. The drug companies should be protected against liability PROVIDED AN INFORMED PUBLIC IS ALLOWED TO MAKE THE INDIVIDUAL CHOICE OF WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE THEMSELVES AND?OR CHILDREN. There is no need for secrecy, and there is absolutely NO need for mandatory vaccinations. Let us ensure an informed public. Provide them with the facts and let them make their own decision. If they choose NO, and get sick, then they suffer the consequences. If they decide the risks of the vaccine are outweighed by the benefits, then they should not be able to sue for any of the DECLARED risks. If risks are not declared, they should be fair game in court. If an individual believes vaccination is good for everyone, then he can start with himself, and stop right there. There is no need to go further, for that individual is now presumably protected by the supposedly safe vaccine and has no right to demand some one else undergo a risk because it seems the smart decision to do so. Freedom demands the right to make poor, even fatal decisions.

This bill destroys yet another part of our freedom in order to promise safety. Such a bargain has it exactly backwards.

The democrats and republicans are different. Sure they spend a ton of money, but they spend it on different things. The democrats go to the extreme of separation of church and state, stuff that just doesn't matter while the republicans have made it their mission to combine the two.
One thing is for certain, the republican party of the reagan era doesn't exist. I think he would not be pleased if he saw where the party has gone since his days.
I wish the general populace understood that less government is better, more efficient, and much easier on everyone's wallets. Seems that people just want handouts. And that is what both parties are doing, but in different ways which is costing considerably.
A Libertarian congress would be great as would a libertarian president.

I think alot of the people who have great writting skills here on this blog needs to visit some of the conservative blogs. There is alot of anger right now towards the Republican leadership. The Libertarian Party gets mentioned alot, but always dismissed in the same blog. The biggest reason isn't our stance on drug legalization. The three reasons given most are: 1) "Kooks" for candidates 2) Can't win 3) Naive on national defense(including border policy). I think some of the people here can convince some Republicans to give us a second look.

Matt I am in agreement to your post.

I don't see how our open immigration policy makes us "naive" on defence. The way I see it, "open immigration" means we will put our troops along our borders to prevent things like nuclear waste from coming in, but allow all people to enter, thus making our borders more secure.

Nigel you are so nieve it isn't even funny, actually it scary. Actually maybe you would like to see Oklahoma city taking place where you live. What you're suggesting would results in having any terrorist who can come up with the fundings for an airplane ticket to North America, not only on our doorstep but in our backyard.
There are many people in the world who believe that democracy such as america's are inherently immoral because they are not base upon religion law. We will never make them happy until we either surrender or die. I don't wont these people in my country. I rather kill them overseas then here. It there choice to hate us. It our choice how to handle it.

Matt what blog would this be?

It always amuses me that the very people who are responsible for inflated gas prices are also always the very people who turn around and whine about it.

The bad part is that their demented blatherings are made policy on both ends of the scale.

Hmmm... Government by insanity. Kind of has a ring to it.

But anyway...

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/03/31/opinion/little.html

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4177

I am very glad to see some conservative-leaners finally realizing that Republicans are not free enterprise oriented. My only question is: what took them so long?

Tim West

Your boy crush on Ronald Reagan sickens me.

Am I alone in the opinion that Reagan was an evil bastard who should be roasted in effigy not worshiped as a savior?

What are his great accomplishments: Union busting; bringing radical Christian fundamentalists into a place of political power; the unending war on drug; and engendering the banana republic brand of fiscal responsibility in the Republican Party.

I have a friend who works in the oil refining industry. He mentioned oil refineries were running at a loss in past years... where was the government then with its check? Oil is a cyclic industry. You can't tax away all the profits in good years and think it will even out.

Re: "demented blatherings". That's why the LP has a huge, uphill, and probably fruitless struggle in front of it. The voting public just does not understand basic economics and the unintended consequences that stem from their insesstant demand that elected officials "do something." Iron law: you always get more of what you subsidize and less of what you penalize.
So penalize the oil companies and get less gasoline. More consequences: your pension fund and 401k probably loaded up on oil stocks (I know mine did, as did I personally). So surtax their profits and your company's pension trust goes down, they have to put up more funding (less $ to increase your salaries) or maybe drop the plan altogether. At the margins, maybe PBGC needs to use taxpayer money to fund bankrupt pension plans.
If one wants more gasoline, maybe a better approach would be to reduce taxes on every oil company that adds, say, 100,000 gals. per day to
its refining capacity. (Sort of like old Libertarian proposals that the best way to find a cure for cancer et al is to declare a 10 yr. tax moratorium on any company that finds the magic cure.

I'm writing to express my concern about the article published on this website two days ago entitled, "Conservative Movement Crumbles Under Bush Administration."

In particular, I'm concerned about the subtitle, "'True Conservatives' Turn to Libertarian Party" since I have never seen a comparable article that says, "'True Liberals' Turn to Libertarian Party." Since the 2000 elections, there have been ample opportunity for such an article to be written, given the precipitous decline and fall of the Liberal movement. Yet, the LP (as far as I can remember) has not published a similar article appealing to the disaffected Left while it has written numerous articles appealing to the disaffected Right.

There is a disturbing trend in the LP to equate Conservatism with Libertarianism, and this trend is showing up among our leadership. This same trend obliterates the historical connection of Liberalism (often called classical Liberalism) to Libertarianism. Instead, it pretends that only Conservatives would be interested in our movement, despite the fact that there is only one short period in history (during the Depression years in particular) when Conservatism (known then as "Isolationism") was consistently and truly equated with free market principles and individual rights. Even the Reagan era was, at best, only spottily supportive of Libertarian values.

This article is not the only bad sign. Before his abrupt departure, former party executive Joe Seehusen made a big splash about reaching out to Conservatives at a Conservative convention this past Summer. However, there have been no similar overtures to Liberals.

For those who have forgotten, the Nolan Chart shows quite clearly that Libertarians are in a separate quadrant from both Conservatives and Liberals. We are philosophically no closer to one than we are to the other. Why then is the LP acting as if Conservatives are potential good guys and recruits, while Liberals are usually bad guys who should only be reviled?

This is a very disturbing bias, and if it continues unabated, we could very well see the Libertarian Party turn into the new Conservative Party and away from its more "Liberal" social policies within our lifetimea.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

This proposal evidences the attacks on free markets by both major parties. All of the refineries in this nation are running at full speed. We need more refining capacity. How would this tax serve that need? Where was the government when this industry was running at a loss? Who is going to cover the expenses for these refineries to comply with clean fuels regulations that go into effect next year?

The looters in Washington are just taking advantage of the polictical climate. Instead of educating their constituents, they do the wrong thing in the interest of winning votes.

Shame on them.

Bagpipe Johnny:

No crush on Reagan here. I'm not sure why pointing out the fact that he has been the only President in modern history who actually reduced the federal government in any single measurement qualifies me for that statement.

Judging by this fact, every person here should view him more favorably than the rest, seeing as he alone actually did something to affect the cost of government in a favorable manner, no matter how small.

Too bad he didnt take it much farther.

Walt:

Every time I say something about reaching out to the left in the form of looking at the power the huge global corps have over the individual I get fights. There's really very little in house desire to actually grow the LP. What everyone seems to want is for all of these people to
BECOME LIBERTARIANS philosophically. In other words, the LP only needs growing if they come to us, say "you were right all along", and joins. Thinking about taking positions on some issues that might appeal to them is "unprincipled".

I maintain the LP does not like to think about abuses of individual rights by business becuase it would force some scrutiny on long held LP tenets that private enterprise is always superior in everything. I have worked at some businesses where that statement can be proven a lie rather quickly through the fraud and deception of the business owners. It depend on the owners. If they are dishonest and exploitive, the business they run will have the same morals and scuples as they do.

I think there's actually MORE room on the left to go with, but only if the party understands that the party itself must give those people reasons to align themselves to us, and they see lots of reasons why big business and individual personal freedom are not exactly bed buddies.

Carl M. is also convinced there's more room on the left than on the right for LP growth provided some real outreach is done, meaning outreach by us go obtain their votes instead of outreach to them to get them to become libertarians.

I want D Walter to know that I am hanging a purple and black ribbon off of my Expert Shrinking Violet Badge in honor of Rosa Parks today. :) I know this makes him proud.

Timothy West

You can't make the statement that Reagan "reduced the federal government".

You can make the statement that he cut funding social programs. But at the same time he was massively increasing military spending. The net effect was a massive deficit and bigger government.

As to the much echoed claim that Reagan broke the Soviet Union by "spending them under the table" - the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union was due more to the reawakening of internal separatist problems under glasnost, the inherent weakness in communist economic theory, and the depressed global price of crude oil - upon which the Soviet economy during those years depended heavily.

bagger,

Please go read the 5th post in this thread. That's the only claim I make for Reagan, exactly what I stated. I also have already echoed what you said in response to JT, which was the third post in this thread. Oh hell, I'll go and get it for you.

"From post WW II until Reagan took office, the total government spending (federal + state/local) ratio had moved straight up, more than doubling, consuming more and more of the economy - from a 22% ratio in 1947 to 44.3% of national income by 1982. The Reagan Era was the first time in 40 years that government did not expand its share of the economy - - in fact, the combined government spending share of the economy was decreased by 4 points - - to 40.5% of national income."

I also dont claim that Reagan was any sort of a libertarian except very superfically. Yet he remains the only President in modern time to reduce government spending IN ANY AREA BY ANY MEASUREMENT possible. Every other President has increased ALL possible measurements of government spending, and G. Bush has increased it faster than Clinton did. Reagan is no libertarian, but every other living Presidents and quite a few dead ones have been far worse.

Libertarian TV:

I don't disagree with what you are pointing out in respect to reaching out to liberals as much as we do conservatives. There may be an issue of perception in respect one side being more statist than the other, but nearly all recent activity of Repubicans has convinced me that many of them are just as statist, if not more so, than Democrats. I'd rather see the LP appeal to the top half of the Nolan chart vs the top right. There might not be as many people to appeal to in the top left, but we should try to get those people in our corner nonetheless.

Which brings a question, does anyone have good stats showing where the US population as a whole falls on the Nolan chart and dispersion relative to each quadrant? I think that would be helpful to know. Is the libertarian quadrant really sparsely populated? Or is it just largely ignored by the other parties?

OK PEOPLE LOOK AT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. This is what people want. Are you listening? This is what we have to work with, and if you can do that, maybe we have a chance getting Libertarians into the Big League.

QUESTION: What is the most important issue for the Congressional Representative from Orange County's 48th District?

Crime: 1.6 % ( 2 )
The Economy: 8.1 % ( 10 )
Education: 6.5 % ( 8 )
Energy: 5.6 % ( 7 )
The Environment: 5.6 % ( 7 )
Illegal Immigration: 26.6 % ( 33 )
National Security: 15.3 % ( 19 )
Taxes: 25.0 % ( 31 )
Other: 5.6 % ( 7 )

Total Votes: 124

It seems to me Libertarian TV is a strong Liberal. Liberal are controlling and for big government.

Americans should avoid the trap of looking at the percentage of the economy consumed by government as some kind of goal to maintain at a certain level (even if that would be an improvement most of the time.)

Assuming government has some legitimate role in providing security and justice services, the percentage of the economy consumed for those services should DECREASE over time, as the economy grows and prospers, expanding into new businesses, technologies, and services.

If government has a limited, defined role (as it must, if voters held government to the limited, defined role under the Constitution), the percentage of GDP spent on government should go down every year.

Lex,

Your assumption may be based on faulty logic. As the economy expands, the number of transactions, wherein a dispute may arise, is likely to increase. So, unless there is some economy of scale in respect to efficiently resolving such disputes, resources consumed to govern disputes will also likely increase. Demands in respect to security/law enforcement may remain the same, assuming the population hasn't increased.

Nigel you are so nieve it isn't even funny, actually it scary. Actually maybe you would like to see Oklahoma city taking place where you live. What you're suggesting would results in having any terrorist who can come up with the fundings for an airplane ticket to North America, not only on our doorstep but in our backyard.
There are many people in the world who believe that democracy such as america's are inherently immoral because they are not base upon religion law. We will never make them happy until we either surrender or die. I don't wont these people in my country. I rather kill them overseas then here. It there choice to hate us. It our choice how to handle it.

Posted by True American

Learn to use English before calling me naive.

Police is hindered by the amount of resources wasted on fighting crimes that should not be crimes (consuming drugs, immigrating, doing business...).
Libertarians should reach out to Libertarians and leave the non-proletarian socialists (the conservatives) burst into hatred against their ancestors who had the guts to emigrate to the USA.
Why would you want to have on your side people who started standing up against Bush because of Harriet Miers... I could see 100 issues before Harriet that should have triggered the uprising.

ExxomMobil pays far more in taxes than it makes in net income. Take a look for yourself http://ccbn.mobular.net/ccbn/7/925/982/ and look on page 38. Here is a brief overview of what the company made in 2004.

Net Income $25,300 billion

Taxes Paid:
Corporate Income Taxes $15,911 billion
Excise Taxes $27,263 billion
Other Taxes/duties $40,954 billion
Total $84,128 billion

In other words, Exxon paid $3 in taxes for every $1 it made in profits. Now thats insane to me as a shareholder. Think for a moment what the company's market value would be at with its current P/E of 12. It would have a market value well over $1.3 trillions versus its current market value of $350 billion.

More likely, the company would do a combination of things with the $80 billion it pays in taxes as long as it made market sense such as cut fuel prices, increase capital expenditures, or increase the dividends.

I have actually thought about presenting a resolution to the board that would ask for the company to begin supporting causes such as the Libertarin Party or DownsizeDC that support a massive reduction in govertnment and taxes.

The shareholders of this country are treated like garbage because we are doubled and in some cases tripled taxed.

Nigel if you are worried about the english, you really are an idiot. haaa haa

I think calling someone an "idiot" is really out of line, True American. But given the source, maybe it's a compliment.

Timothy West
I have to disagree with your economic assertions. Reagan's spending was out of control! This chart at
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html shows data collected from whitehouse.gov of national debt vs. GDP. Of course, this debt comes from government spending. And if the debt level of the reagen/bush era was 10% of GDP, nobody would even notice it.

Nigel if you are worried about the english, you really are an idiot. haaa haa

Posted by True American

It's not that there are a few typos, or a few grammatical irregularities. It's that your post is such a travesty of language that I have no idea what you're saying.

You have no idea what the person says, because your comprehension is that of a child. The rest of us seem to understand. So it looks like the problem is you. Please go play in your sandbox.

Jesus Christ on a thistle, I make a reasonable request for good English and I'm suddenly surrounded by a crowd of name-calling middle schoolers.

Actually you should have kept your big mouth shut then. Nigel.

Eponym asked: "Which brings a question, does anyone have good stats showing where the US population as a whole falls on the Nolan chart and dispersion relative to each quadrant?"

I don't think anyone really knows for sure what the breakdown is for the entire population. Rasmussen Research did a poll in 2000 based on the Quiz that found that 16% of the population were libertarian, although only 2% identified themselves as such. Gallup previously did two polls which suggested that between 19-22% were libertarian.

According to the Advocates for Self-Government, the breakdown is as follows based on the 5 million who have taken the quiz online:

Libertarian 34.87%
Centrist 30.15%
Left (Liberal) 18.86%
Statist (Big Government) 8.64%
Right (Conservative) 7.48%

Of course, it's not a scientific sampling. Still, it has some interesting numbers in it. For instance, there are nearly twice as many who have scored liberal as those who have scored conservative. I'm pretty sure this is not representative of the population at large, but it should tell us something about who is checking out libertarianism!

Interestingly enough, just one year ago the total count at the Advocates' website was 3 million, according to an old article I found on the Advocates' website from a year ago. A year later, it's now over 5 million. This means 2 million people have taken the poll at the Advocates' website in the past year. What's particularly interesting is that the old article showed the relative percentages at that time. I compared them to the current percentages, and apparently none have changed by more than 0.5%. So, whatever the reason, about 19% of those who decided to take the quiz in the past year came up liberal, while only about 7.5% came up conservative and 8.6% came up statist.

I wonder how many of those statists were self-described conservatives or liberals? My guess is that more of them were self-described conservatives, but I have no way of knowing that for sure.

Nigel, you'll find that Pasy and True American consider themselves to be the "good guys," and anyone who disagrees with them are the "bad guys."

In my opinion, that speaks very well of you!

Tim wrote: "I maintain the LP does not like to think about abuses of individual rights by business becuase it would force some scrutiny on long held LP tenets that private enterprise is always superior in everything."

I suspect that's quite true among some libertarians. However, most libertarians in my experience are much more open to the idea that business is quite capable of violating individual rights. I don't have any problem with the idea that business needs to be reined in when it engages in rights abuse.

Free enterprise can do a lot to correct and/or improve most aspects of human life. Government cannot. Government has only one legitimate role: to protect and defend individual rights, but that doesn't imply that government regulation is a good way to achieve that goal. It's supposed to get the job done by fighting crime and defending against attack by other countries.

Most often, when free enterprise is described as a solution, that solution is offered in contrast to solutions based on government regulation and intervention. In those cases, I have to agree that free enterprise is the better solution.

But really it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Free enterprise is not supposed to be the source of crime fighting. That's supposed to be government's job. Free enterprise is supposed to be about improving the human condition via trade.

On the other hand, I won't rule out the possibility that the time may come when we turn as a society to private enterprise to protect and defend individual rights, if government continues to do such a lousy job in its one, legitimate area.

I guess I will put in a comment, I find it interesting that this is a blog full of grownup acting like children doing insults, and Mr. Tv who decided to put his two cents worth tells me. He is more interested in acting like an infant, siding with the same type. Instead of talking about the important issues of politics. This sets a poor example for the Libertarian party.

Well, leave it too the democrats to find another way to tax greed.Oil prices are astronomical and they want to tax the profits of the oil companies. Great answer liberals. The oil companies are gouging people to the point that owner operator truckers as well as small trucking companies and airlines are going bankrupt or are headed there at an un-precidented rate. That should be good for job growth. Not too mention many of the elderly and disabled people who are on fixed incomes are going to freeze to death this winter because they can't afford to pay for their heating needs because of the price gouging going on from the oil companies. The republicans have done nothing to slow the rate of price gouging (Why would they, most politicians are heavily invested in saudi oil) and the oil companies are bragging about their profits that are in the billions. Diesel fuel was $ 1.49 per gallon a year ago and now its double that price in many states. This kind of an increase is more than any economy can withstand. Our economic problems may suffer a domino effect in the very near future, meaning that when the economy finally begins to CRASH, there may be no stopping it. Huge inflation may be just around the corner and I hope that the republicans ar prepared for the slaughter that the 2006 and 2008 elections are going to bring because of their arrogance and stupidity.

Keep in mind that 70% of ExxonMobil's profits are made outside the United States.

To be honest, if you want oil companies to make less money, use fewer oil products. Don't whine about it, and for the sake of anything that may or may not be holy, don't tax it.

Oh Good,, Now Big Government can do the same thing to oil has it did to the the vaccine industry. In about 5 years we can go to Canada and Mexico to buy our oil.

We could also blame it on the futures market and have Big Government go after the speculators because if it wasn't for them they would not have made the big bucks.

Who ever, thanks for the data on Exxon's taxes. This is a good reason to limit the profits in the oil industry. Limit the profits will limit new business-new competition. Who's wagin the dog?

OK that's my 4:00 in the morning 2 cents
sorry for staying on topic

And one more thing , WHO ever let Exxon-Mobil get back together again?

In regards to the evils of Big Business, it's not capitalism and the free market - which we as a party love - which cause the problems referred to here; it is corporations - inherently socialist and what the Left truly dispises - which use government power to advance their business interests.

If you want to draw support from the current Left as well as the Right, make a point of differentiating what we advocate - free market capitalism - from what they oppose - big business in the form of limited liability corporations.

Greg T, you are hysterically funny. You follow two posts of mine in which I specifically discuss parallel political issues raised by others on this blog, and you accuse me of acting like an infant because I don't talk "about the important issues of politics."

However, I notice that there is a distinct lack of contribution from you on this same blog, except to condemn others. Perhaps you would like to contribute something to the discussion about Big Oil? Or the appropriate role of government? Or something else constructive?

Mark,

yes inddedy. What business needs is literally a New Deal - a bargain that government wont regulate and stick it's nose in every aspect of their legit business activities in return for elimination of personhood "rights" such as lobbying and campaign contributions. The businesses involved would simply call it protecting their interests - and they have a point, up to a point - which is when they start writing the law to protect themselves or unbalance the marketplace, something has to be done about it.

We want a free market, not a market that's horribly out of balance due to business-written legislation that distorts the marketplace.

Actually, I am doing more observing for now, and while there are good discussion on different topics, whether I agree or disagree. I think that Libertarians have a good approach to freedom but needs to update issues such as immigration and war issues. I can see why there are a lot of division in the party. Seems like you agree on the rest of the issues that should change, such as taxes, schools, and so on.
I think that I will be more interested in doing thing in actually life, rather then spend to much time on a blog.
I think that there should be less time spent on insults and more time spent on comming to terms in agreement of things.

I agree with you Greg. Finding ways to agree is very important in order to help the movement move ahead. One of the first things we must be willing to do in such a process is to refrain from calling each other names. Another is to actually take part in both the discussions and the real-life activities.

There are bound to be "negatarians" in any political movement, not just the libertarian movement. They don't actually do anything but make noise. But those of us who are actually working toward improving things don't generally fall into that camp (although any human can make mistakes at times).

As with some others here, I'm involved in local/state campaigns here in Virginia. It's one of the more practical ways I "do things in actual life." I encourage you to do the same.

No political party agrees on everything. There will always be differences of opinion on how to proceed regarding various issues. Instead, of looking for perfection, why not get into the movement? You and I might not agree on immigration and war issues (or perhaps we might), but should that really prevent you from becoming involved?

I actually think the Greens have us beat in the inter-frat fighting Dept. :D

The reason we have more outreach towards conservatives then we do liberals is because we have more libertarians in the Republican party then we have in the Libertarian Party. We have libertarians elected in Congress as Republicans, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Jeff Flake, Sen. John Sunni, just to name a few. Can you name a high profile Democrat that has more then 50% libertarian voting record. We have many elected Republicans with 80% and higher libertarian voting record, unfortunately the Neo-cons and the Christian right has the leadership.

Thank Matt, Tim, TV & Grey, for bring stablity to this news feed. It is important to work together from a common ground.

I'm not so sure about Ron Paul though, to be honest. I saw a bill that he sponsored to decree that "life begins at conception." This contrasts strongly with the libertarian (small l) ideal of leaving gray moral areas to the people.

To Jack:

"Who ever, thanks for the data on Exxon's taxes. This is a good reason to limit the profits in the oil industry. Limit the profits will limit new business-new competition. Who's wagin the dog?

OK that's my 4:00 in the morning 2 cents
sorry for staying on topic"

Posted by: Jack"

I disagree with you completely. The government should NOT be setting limits on how much any person or corporation makes. Besides everyone who pays taxes already have a windfall tax to limit what they could make. Of course I think the majority of our taxes (95%) needs to be eliminated. I think the marketplace should be setting what corporations make and not some bureaucrat in Washington or any other government official. Would you like it if I set your wages to $40,000 per year but you could actually earn $100,000 per year? You would probably be screaming bloody murder that I am taking the shirt off your back.

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious there. If he wasn't, he's on the wrong site...

Nigel-
Saying that Ron Paul is for; drug legalization, gun rights, free markets and strict constitutional government. I think we can let him slide on that one thing.

The LP is the party of principle. He's nuancing his principles, and that's not OK.

Representative Ron Paul runs as a Republican. The RNC gives him no campaign money. That may be because he is a sure thing. It may because he won't play ball with the big boys. He has voted consistently with his libetarian principles as long as he has been in office. Ron Paul gets my vote every election. Hope he can show us a replacement when he retires from Congress.

Tim,

"Reagan failed in many ways, but his administration was the first time that government spending decreased in over 40 years"

False.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

Federal spending approximately doubled between 1981 and 1989, even though inflation was relatively low. High debts incurred during this time should also be added, since they are just deferred spending.

Reagan ratcheted up military spending and the war on drugs. As a result, "Nearly 7 million adults were in U.S. prisons or on probation or parole at the end of last year, 30 percent more than in 1995, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

That was about one in every 31 adults under correctional supervision at the end of 2004, compared with about 1 in 36 adults in 1995 and about 1 adult in every 88 in 1980, said Allan Beck, who oversaw the preparation of the department's annual report on probation and parole populations." -REBECCA CARROLL
Associated Press

Nor was there any reduction in social spending; in fact it grew. It just didn't grow as fast as some Democrats wanted, which became known as "cuts". Since both Democrats and Republicans agreed that slowing projected spending growth is a "cut" (and only disagreed whether this is good), cuts they became. Actual, real cuts have not been on the realistic policy table in a long, long time...at least since the 1920s or 30s as far as anything any major party seriously advocated.

Matt,

"I think some of the people here can convince some Republicans to give us a second look."

No thanks, we have more than enough of those already. Better to ditch those and start building bridges to the left.

"The way I see it, "open immigration" means we will put our troops along our borders to prevent things like nuclear waste from coming in, but allow all people to enter, thus making our borders more secure."

I have a better idea. How about if we stop acting like kids drawing lines in a sandbox, stop stealing money (taxes) to pay for "our" troops on this imaginary line and realize that the only legitimate borders are individual property lines?

False Amerikkkan,

"Actually maybe you would like to see Oklahoma city taking place where you live. What you're suggesting would results in having any terrorist who can come up with the fundings for an airplane ticket to North America, not only on our doorstep but in our backyard."

Funny given that OKC was not commited by foreigners? Actually the real terrorists are the ones running the USSA regime, and their actions around the world invite minor-league imitators.

"There are many people in the world who believe that democracy such as america's are inherently immoral because they are not base upon religion law."

Yet they don't attack numerous countries, such as Switzerland or Iceland, which are even less based on "religious" law. Why do you suppose that is?

"We will never make them happy until we either surrender or die."

There goes that silly regime propaganda again. Actually they just want you to leave them alone and quit meddling in the middle east...

"I don't wont these people in my country."

My property is not your country. You and your regime don't own me.

"I rather kill them overseas then here. "

Then go there yourself, but leave my money and my friends' kids out of it.

Bagpipe,

"Am I alone in the opinion that Reagan was an evil bastard who should be roasted in effigy not worshiped as a savior?"

No, you are not alone.

LTV,

I agree with you about the conservative bias.

Lex,

"If government has a limited, defined role (as it must, if voters held government to the limited, defined role under the Constitution), the percentage of GDP spent on government should go down every year."

Limited government is like limited cancer.

matt,

"The reason we have more outreach towards conservatives then we do liberals is because we have more libertarians in the Republican party then we have in the Libertarian Party."

False. It's because there are more conservatives than libertarians in the Libertarian Party.

"We have libertarians elected in Congress as Republicans, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Jeff Flake, Sen. John Sunni, just to name a few."

Agreed on Ron Paul, although even he is not perfect. NOT on the rest.

"We have many elected Republicans with 80% and higher libertarian voting record"

ROTFL. That's from a very poor definition of what constitutes a libertarian voting record....

I agree with the idea that the LP is more likely to find philosophical converts from the people registered Republican. I am a registered Republican however my politics are much closer to Libertarian. My main interests are in fiscal issues however I also believe in individual liberty and am not interested in government imposed morality.

The main reason I think the LP has limited appeal is that many policies they support have no clear implementation plan.

Immigration policy has been mentioned in several blog entries. My take is that it is fine to say that the market should dictate who is able to survive but what will happen if the LP position (http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml) was immediately implemented? We would cut government services for the poor/needy and at the same time allow people to stream in who may not understand this.

Will people end up sleeping in the streets in tents? Some would probably pay part of their monthly/annual income now to not have to deal with this type of problem. What would their money do? Laws against loitering/camping can be introduced (whoops, infringing on personal liberties) and enforced, but where do they ultimately go? That's not an answer, so what is?

A blog entry on the OC LP (http://www.lpoc.org/2005/10/08/tibor-machan-what-about-the-children/) describes the possible scenario where government benefits are removed for people who cannot support their children. Like many of the more radical ideas, it's great theory, but in practice it proves to be very difficult to figure out.

The LP could really increase its attractiveness by presenting issue positions that have clear paths to implementation.

If Henry Ford decided to build the Explorer instead of the Model T, how successful would he have been? It would have been impossible, and that is how the LP can look sometimes.

One other thing, the idea that business contract enforcement and personal property protection are the true ideals is really overly simplistic (Paul).

I live in a city.

I like living in a city.

Is it reasonable to expect that people in my city who like living there will band together to keep it nice? Maybe.

Who owns city property? How does it get transferred in a non-government system?

It's great to have the ideals but if you're not bringing an implementation plan I'm not listening.

One more. Education policy (http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.shtml).

I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country (median house price) and pay huge property taxes. A lot of those taxes pay for the local schools. I would accept one of the following (in order):

1. Give me back my money. Make all schools private. If charities want to support education, let them.

2. Leave it as it is.

The line to me that is not clear is,

"It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend."

I agree that parents should be able to choose a school for their children (as long as they can afford to pay for it). If they want to send their children to the school my property taxes paid for then my answer is no. I see the choice of school district and where you live as the "right to decide what school their children will attend". I find this policy to be contradictory and harmful to the overall impression people will have of the LP.