If only our fight were public. Rosie and Donald get CNN, we get blogtalkradio.com? This isn't a fight, it's more like a playground brawl.

Anyway, Bill, thanks for defending the Libertarian Party. Your efforts are appreciated.

Greetings,

The "debate" between Bartlett and Redpath will be up for one week, til next Thursday's show. You may listen to it by going to the link at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com for BlogTalkRadio. Then click on "Last Week's Show" on the BTR Libertarian Politics Live page. Note, it is also accessible through ITunes.

We were honored to have Mr. Redpath as a guest, and hope he returns as a semi-regular commentator.

He made a most excellent case that the Libertarian Party plays an extremely important role in US politics. I couldn't agree more.

Eric Dondero, Host
Libertarian Politics Live
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

The Libertarian Party is the only party that has worth in America. The Republicans and Democrats are Anti-American Political Parties bent on maintaining power.

Roberto -

I've said this many times. I think there are many issues on which the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party would be natural allies, specifically: (a) states rights/local control; (b) gun rights; (c) property rights; (d) all economic issues (except for their support of higher tariffs); (e) a non-interventionist foreign policy; and (f) a military big and strong enough to defend the united states - (I refer to the united states in lower case since they should be 50 sovereign, free, and independent states)

Personally, I think each of the 50 states should each have their own army, army air force, and army special forces. Meanwhile, the feds would be allowed to have the navy, navy air force, the marines corps, and navy special forces.

Stan,

It sounds like you want to divide one sovereign country into 50 sovereign countries. What benefit would we derive from that?

If Wyoming, as an example of a state with a small population. had its own army and air force and special forces, who would man the Waffle House? It ain't gonna work, Stan.

I have a much better idea. Why not radically reduce the Military Establishment to a purely defensive level. Much of the surface navy is tactically obsolete and could be desposed of. Stop building carriers and start building submarines.

I am a strong proponent of sucession. Replace the existing United States with a Confederacy, with individual states controlling almost all of their own affairs. Only foreign relations and a few other responsibilities would fall to the confederacy government.

Mark B.,

How would your proposal of a confederacy differ from our nation's first government. Our founding fathers tried a confederacy and it failed. The Federal government was basically rendered powerless and the states were more or less their own sovereign countries. Granted today's Federal government exercises too much authority, I still think our Federal government needs some strong central power, be it less than they possess now, while preserving the current structure of the United States of America.

Justin -
I don't want to divide the u.s. into 50 different countries. However, I do believe that each individual state should have more sovereignty over its own affairs, including their own defense.
--------------------------------------------------
RustyZ -
I didn't say it's perfect. I do believe that each state should have an army/army air force/army special forces that's big enough to protect themselves from an attack and an invasion. I also seem to remember that when we became a group of sovereign, free, and independent states, each of the 13 states had its own army and succeeded in defeating the powerful British army in 1781.
--------------------------------------------------
Mark B. -
I agree with you on reducing the size of our military establishment, and replacing our aircraft carriers with submarines. I also agree with you on secession, and that the states should have more control over their own affairs, but I also include the right to have their own armies. Remember what I said earlier about our victory over the British. I would only allow the feds to take care of the navy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html

Now your mail is everyone business.

There are a lot of good articles on Steve Quayle.

Ironic, to see Ghandi quoted here.

Haven't visited this backwater in months. Now I remember why.

Try this Ghandi quote on for size:

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

Not much going on here that can reasonably be called "libertarian" (sorry, guys can't seem to make the "l" any smaller for you).

Real Libertarians are, in case you were mildly curious, (unlike your feckless leader in the White House), focused (and unequivocally on one side of) the three most urgent and significant issues of the day:

The War against the people of Iraq:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd48.html

The imminent war against the people of Iran:

http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=10223

And the only solution to above:

http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

Peace 2U
---The Bikemessenger

RobertNoval

bikemessenger

If there were 50 independent states each with their own military, not only would they end up fighting each other, but rights in some of the states would be abused even further than they are now. If the federal government were operating under the actual Constitution rather than The Reps and Dems Constitution of the Week we would not be having this discussion because all those things such as states rights and a federal government for defense and the like would be happening. 50 new and separate armies would be very dangerous to each other and other countries. We need to bring our national military under control and they should operate for the purpose of defending the 50 states from foreign invasion or attack, as opposed to misadventures in the sand and jungle parts of the world.

As for the new Postal Act, I fear the dictatorship just gained another dagger in the arsenal of intrusion.

Please note, Libertarian Party Communications Director Stephen Gordon has been chosen as one of the Top 10 Libertarian Activists of the Year over at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

The greater threat to liberty always came from the central government than it ever did from the states.

One reason why I support giving each state its own army (not navy) is because it would be able to protect their states from any military attack launched by the federal government against the states.

I never knew that my support for decentralization would actually be MORE radical than that of my fellow libertarians. I thought we were on the same track. I guess not.

wow, each state with its own army and navy and airforce. Don't we have that now with the National Guard? And frankly, lets' get real. Some states like North Dakota and West Virginia are so poor financially they couldn't afford to have a Navy. A Navy in those states?
Realism . There are some instances were you want to get the biggest bang for your buck. Sometimes a centralized focus is a better spend of the taxpayer money. I'm a fiscal conservative. The military is not the problem. The problem is the lobby groups, lawyers, two-party duopoly. Buckeye Kevin in Ohio

Kevin -

I said that each state would have their own army/army air force/army special forces. The navy/navy air force/navy special forces/marines would be under the control of the federal government.

Read more carefully next time.

Under my proposed Confederation, the Navy and the Air Force would be under the exclusive control of the Confederation. The Confederation would also maintain a small ready reaction force, perhaps one division. There would be no standing army as we know it. The Marine Corps would be eliminated entirely as simply irrelevant to modern tactical needs.

The states would maintain Militias/National Guards as they presently do. In times of national emergency, the Confederation could requisition portions of these units to form a temporary National Army, which would be disbanded at the end of the emergency.

To maintain a large standing army, as we now do, is not only wasteful, but it invites the abusive imperialistic foreign policy that we all see to day.

Justin:

The Articles were a viable form of government:

I would direct you to this article:

http://www.mises.org/story/1296

The Articles were not perfect, and probably could have stood some minor improving. But they were sadly dumped completely and the result is the monstrosity we have today.

I have drafted a model set of "Articles". Modeled on the original "Articles" but improved and modernized to reflect present day reality. The most important improvements over the original Confederation would be that the Confederation would control foreign trade and tariffs and would have a set method of collecting monetary requisitions from the states. These were the two main problems of the original Confederation.

All in all, a decentralized Confederation would be much better and much less of a threat to liberties.

Under my plan, a state would be able to refuse to send army personnel if the federal government asked for the provision of these forces for an unnecessary war. This is another reason why I said it: to establish a decentralized military structure. In addition, I wanted the states to be able to defend itself against federal tyranny.

Here's just another of the many reasons we need Libertarians.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=545957

It all don't mean a darn thing if no one's heard of us. That's the problem folks. Not an army per state, it's marketing and positioning. The LP has about half the "card carrying" members that it did at its peak. We're going downhill fast. Nobody's heard of us. And if they have they think we're a bunch of nutcases. If a non-libertarian reads this thread, they'll have even more evidence that we're a bunch of nutcases.

Stan:

Under my "Articles" proposal, there would be a single chamber Congress, composed of delegations elected annually by the state legislatures. There would be 2 to 5 delegates per state, but each states delegation would have one and only one vote in Congress and three quarters of states would be required to take major action. In addition, there would be no central executive. You would have a President of Congress, but his powers would be purely formal and he would merely be a ceremonial head of state. The Department heads would be selected by Congress and would report directly to the Congress without any Prime Minister or similar official. Without a strong executive and with decisions requiring 3/4's of states, central government abuse and imperialistic abuses would be virtually impossible.

There would be no need for the separate military structures which you propose.

RustyZ:

You flippantly make the nutcase reference. Perhaps you are not aware that for 34 years the Libertarian Platform specifically endorsed political secession, from the original 1972 platform until the 2004 platform. The plank was only stripped during the Portland disaster of 2006. Secession is a basic and essential tenet of libertarian philosophy. By ridiculing secession, you are by necessary extension ridiculing the entire Libertarian Party. I guess you consider Harry Browne, John Hospers, Andre Marrou, Ed Clark, Murray Rothbard and many other well educated men nutcases because they supported and endorsed that plank. Secession is a necessary and proper topic to be discussed both within and without the Libertarian community.

Mark B. -
I could have sworn that my set-up was most similar to the Articles of Confederation. Look at Article 7. It states that all military officers from the rank of colonel and under are appointed by the state legislatures.

Stan:

You are correct on that. Under my proposal that would essentially continue to be the case. When these units were called to National Service, the Congress would appoint the General Officers, most likely by Brevet. Essentially they would hold temporary commissions as Generals from Congress. At the end of the emergency, they would revert back to their original state rank.

I think are main difference is probably just a semantic one Stan. You refer to each state having its own "Army". I refer to each state as having its own National Guard/Militia, which in an emergency, portions of each states force would be called up to form a National "Army". We are probably not that far apart, our differences are mainly semantic.

It's good to know that someone realizes that my set-up is well though out.

thought*

Stan,
Do you believe the average American voter ever thinks to him/herself, "Gee, I wish my state would secede. And by the way, I wish this state had its own air force." I doubt it. However, I'd bet a buck or two that they do at times think to themselves and maybe state out loud, "Gee, I wish my taxes were lower so I hac more money and could send my kids to a better college." or "Gee, I feel like lighting up a joint, I wish it were legal."
Those are the issues that the average American voter that the LP is trying to woo is concerned about.
If you want the LP to shrink even more, keep on your secession track and it will happen.

RustyZ -

Do you know which people oppose secession and states rights? - Nazis, Communists, and Lincoln Cultists. Which one are you?

By the way, forcing individual states to become part of a larger union is no different from a shotgun wedding.

Justin, you are exactly right. The article you linked shows why libertarians are important, that is if we make it known that our position is not to support the state "stealing" from Target and Home Depot what people have rightfully purchased. If I lived in Wisconsin and the law passed, I would send my family members checks instead of gift cards just to make sure the state didn't get the money.

RustyZ is right. No one has heard of us and the average voter does not think about secession. For half of Americans, they see their state government as more socially and economically intrusive and oppressive than the Federal Government. Why would they want to seceed now, to lose more rights? Talk of secession is not helpful at the present time.

But, those that say secession is a right we should have are correct as well. This just isn't the time for it. We have to bring our existing governments (at all level) under control first. We have to change people's minds about liberty, taxes, and injustice first. Then, and only then, can we realistically expect secession or a Confederate government or any other scenarios brought up here.

As for the individual state armies, or militias, or whatever you want to call them, we have that now with the National Guards of each state. They just don't have the appropriate power because our governments are not under the control that is required. We MUST bring our government under control FIRST. To do this, like it or not, we have to focus on the things that people care most about -- TAXES and SOCIAL LIBERTY.

People already recognize their rights are being trampled on through taxation and moral babysitting. This is where the LP and libertarianism in general can do the most good. Only when we have the political power to make change can we expect people to listen to our more "different" ideas, such as secession or privatizing the Post Office. We stub our own toe if we talk about those ideas now. Meanwhile the Reps and Dems giggle at our ineptitude.

Stan,

Too bad you had to resort to puerile, ad hominem attacks. Our conversation is over.

I also seem to remember that when we became a group of sovereign, free, and independent states, each of the 13 states had its own army and succeeded in defeating the powerful British army in 1781.

nope. the militia were considered next to worthless by Washington, enough to where he would only use them if he had no other choice. We had a regular Continental Army, comprised of soldiers who fought or the nation, not the state they were from, who were whipped into shape by a Prussian merc ( not sure of the name, I think it was Von Stuebendorf) who happened to be gay as well.

that we were able to win a single battle over the
British, the finest military forces in the world, both army and navy of the time, never mind win the war, is still amazing.

now, anyone who thinks a single voter in 100,000 gives a rats butt about secession and if it's in the platform of 08 or not or will make a difference in the LP's fortunes either way needs a check up from the neck up. Hows that for a attack?

IRAQ
TAXES
PHONY DEBT BASED "PROSPERITY"
CREDITABLY PROPOSING ENTITLEMENT REFORM
ENDING WAGE AND DEBT SLAVERY
REINING IN THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

these are what the New LP should be involved in and proposing for 08 and 10.

Timothy West:

I think I just made a very major proposal for reigning in the military industrial complex. However, I will detail for you and everybody else's benefit.

1. Withdraw completely from Iraq and Afghanistan and bring U.S. forces home from where ever they may be in the world.

2. Close all overseas U.S. bases and return them to the sovereignty of the home country. That includes Guatanomo Bay in Cuba.

3. Immediately stop building naval surface ships. Tactically in a modern war such ships are worthless and most of our Aircraft Carriers would be at the bottom of the ocean in the first 15 minutes of a modern war. Solely build submarines, particularly tactical attack submarines.

4. The Marine Corps is redundant, abolish it.

5. Maintain the Air Force as is for the time being.

6. Reduce the U.S. Army to one all purpose division.

7. Rely on nuclear deterents.

8. We should mainly concentrate on making sure our defensive weaponry can counter the new technology of China and Russia.

9. If we stop pissing off other countries, we are less likely to invite attack.

As for your other concerns, I think I have covered them all at some point or the other:

Entitlement Reform and phony debt based prosperity as you put it in your above post:

Social Security and Medicare Abolition can be and should be handled in the same stroke as monetary and banking reform.

1. Abolish the Federal Reserve.

2. Require 100% reserve banking and 100% commodity money.

3. Since much of the trust fund IOU's in the Medicare and Social Security trust funds are held by the Federal Reserve all this debt would be wiped clean with the abolition of the Federal Reserve.

4. Sell off excess federal land and assets and use the proceeds to buy out the Social Security system in the form of annuities. Once everyone is bought out, abolish Social Security. Abolish Medicare straight away and unconditionally. Abolish all Federal regulation of the health and pharmaceutical industries and all insurance regulation. Place healthcare on a strictly commodity basis.

Wage and debt slavery would be ended as a consequence of monetary and banking reform and require no further elucidation.

Taxes:

This one is easy.

Reduce the Federal Government to its constitutional level and you can simply abolish personal and corporate income taxes and fund the central government on tariffs, tonnages, excises and user fees.

Mark, a few issues with your plan --

1) Why withdraw from Afghanistan? We were attacked by Al Qaeda so we should fight them wherever they lie.

3) Aircraft carriers are necessary for transporting and basing fighter jets, especially if we have no overseas bases.

4) The Marines are responsible for defending U.S. Embassies. There will still be a need for embassies, especially if diplomacy is our remaining tool for world interaction. Given the global economy, we will definitely need a presence in each foreign country. Not all will be libertarian nations over night. Governments will still control the economies of most nations.

5) One division of the Army leaves them (and subsequently us) vulnerable. Diversity of divisions is necessary for the different enemies we may face. Specializing them would be a good idea and then the remaining divisions can be support to the lead division. Say if we were attacked by Cuba, a lead division would have a tactical and cultural expertise of the enemy to better combat them. If we are at war other divisions provide support and work toward integration should the fight escalate. Much of our problems in war come from not knowing the enemy or the people among them. It takes much more than knowing the terrain and weapons of the opponent.

8) China is not a likely enemy. Economically, they need us and we need them. Barring a Taiwan disaster we're not fighting them. But preparedness for all possible foes, even Canada, should be a standing order for our military, because (paraphrasing) "stuff happens." Main point here is that we have other enemies that are of greater importance to prepare for. Start with them.

9) You are correct and that scenario is ideal and possible, but it does not guarantee anything. Be ready for everything, even the unthinkable.

But you're welcome to be my Treasury Secretary;)

mark,

some of your details are good. some are impossible to politically propose in the manner you state them.

Libertarians are like bad British comics. They don't know their good material from their bad, so they just throw it all out there and hope they get a laugh.

your number 4 about health care is politically impossible. If Harry Browne couldn't get anyone to go for that, why try the same again?

What might work better is to attack the medicare drug plan, since it's already hosed and widely viewed as confusing and not even seniors can figure it out.

Pick the soft underbelly of your targets. The most recent expansions are the ones with the least people invested nd he most likely to be ble to be slimmed down or done away with.

RustyZ -

By not talking to me, you are doing me a favor.

It is possible to end the health and pharmaceutical regulations, but it must be done carefully because we're talking about people's lives and health. Rational thinking usually is substituted for panic with this topic. Many Americans want to be secure in the thought that their health is secure and it is one place they generally favor government interaction, citing protection from greedy corporations.

Of course, they are misinformed. This is an area where education by the party is more valuable than speeches claiming that the free market will solve all problems. That is a truth but one better stated on other libertarian sites rather than the one trying to get libertarians into office. We can start by pointing out how the federal and state governments criminalize alternative medicine uses (only chemotherapy is permitted by law to be labeled as a "cure" for cancer despite many other remedies that may have positive outcomes). Governments prevent insurance companies from lowering rates, not just increasing them (health, auto, and home). In other words they contribute to the high cost. Drug lobbyists manipulate the elected officials to keep drug costs high forcing seniors to take long bus trips to Canada. We should be careful about using phrases like "abolish" when talking about agencies the public sees as their protector. They are wrong but we need to educate in this area before we try to enact mass changes in laws, and I would say this even if we had a libertarian President, governors, held a majority in federal and state legislatures, and had courts friendly to us. And since we hold none of those we need to be especially careful.

But our reforms are definitely possible and will take time and patience.

Taxes, on the other hand, everyone wants eliminated. That is how we will get elected.