The stereotypical Libertarian

I am a Libertarian, I am a firm believer in individual liberty, in the rights of the people to live in a way they wish without interference from government or other individuals; a believer in the liberty principle which states that people have the right to act and live in a manner they deem best fit for themselves so long as they do not at any time violate the rights of others. This is what the Libertarian believes, this is what Libertarians base their positions on.

The Libertarian to the liberal is a heartless monster, unwilling to care for their fellow man. Because of our opposition to social welfare such as Social Security and universal health care (opposition founded in our principles) we are nothing more then greedy misers, hording onto our money and unwilling to use it for the betterment of our fellow man. To the liberal we are simply neo social Darwinist. The strong will survive, the poor should go ahead and die "and relieve us of our excess population." To the libera,l Libertarians support the rich to the last by opposing government intervention in the private market. We are either super rich millionaires or are sympathizers for the super rich because we wish to be them someday. To the liberal the only thing Libertarians are good for is for opposing unnecessary wars and cutting defense spending. To the liberal, Libertarians hate the poor, hate children, were raised by wolves, and have no compassion. We oppose people living in groups and think every man is an island with no need to deal with others. We oppose fire stations, police, post offices, utilities, and hospitals. To the liberal, Libertarians are a useless fringe group which should be ignored under normal conditions, and trashed when it gains popularity.

The Libertarian to the conservative is a wimpy, un-America, unpatriotic crack head. Because of our opposition to the war in Iraq, excessive defense spending, and sending trillions overseas to support our enormous worldwide empire, the conservatives see us as sympathizers for the terrorists who are naive about the world wide situation or ignorant about our enemies main goals. To the conservative, the Libertarian's worldview on foreign is dangerous and threatens national security. Because of our opposition to the drug war, Libertarians must be a bunch of doped up crackheads too high to have any common sense. Our arguments against the drug war (such as its a violation of personal rights, it costs too much, it causes more harm then good) are nothing more then the ramblings of people who want to smoke a joint without getting in trouble and should be marginalized and ignored. Our willingness to talk to our enemies and consider the motives of those who attack us makes us enemies to our national security. To the conservative, Libertarians are a useless fringe group which should be ignored under normal conditions, and trashed when it gains popularity.

To the liberals and the conservatives, the Libertarians 100% support for the constitution flies in the face of their personal interests and their own view of what American should be. The conservatives and liberals would rather ignore that this nation has a set of laws that they must obey and pretend they don't exist. This makes it easier for them to impose their worldviews on others who may or may not agree with them. Instead of obeying the constitution and seeking amendments, our sacred document is ignored and thrown to the back of a room where no one can see it. Libertarians desire to bring it back into the light, at the forefront of American politics, threatens the ideals of the liberal and conservative worldviews. This makes Libertarians a useless fringe group which should be ignored under normal conditions, and trashed when it gains popularity.

Don't believe the stereotypes conservatives and liberals believe about Libertarians. Educate yourself on our beliefs, on our platform.

www.lp.org. Join the revolution.

The stereotypical Libertarian.

I am a Libertarian, I am a firm believer in individual liberty, in the rights of the people to live in a way they wish without interference from government or other individuals; a believer in the liberty principle which states that people have the right to act and live in a manner they deem best fit for themselves so long as they do not at any time violate the rights of others. This is what the Libertarian believes, this is what Libertarians base their positions on.

The Libertarian to the liberal is a heartless monster, unwilling to care for their fellow man. Because of our opposition to social welfare such as Social Security and universal health care (opposition founded in our principles) we are nothing more then greedy misers, hording onto our money and unwilling to use it for the betterment of our fellow man. To the liberal we are simply neo social Darwinist. The strong will survive, the poor should go ahead and die "and relieve us of our excess population." To the libera,l Libertarians support the rich to the last by opposing government intervention in the private market. We are either super rich millionaires or are sympathizers for the super rich because we wish to be them someday. To the liberal the only thing Libertarians are good for is for opposing unnecessary wars and cutting defense spending. To the liberal, Libertarians hate the poor, hate children, were raised by wolves, and have no compassion. We oppose people living in groups and think every man is an island with no need to deal with others. We oppose fire stations, police, post offices, utilities, and hospitals. To the liberal, Libertarians are a useless fringe group which should be ignored under normal conditions, and trashed when it gains popularity.

The Libertarian to the conservative is a wimpy, un-America, unpatriotic crack head. Because of our opposition to the war in Iraq, excessive defense spending, and sending trillions overseas to support our enormous worldwide empire, the conservatives see us as sympathizers for the terrorists who are naive about the world wide situation or ignorant about our enemies main goals. To the conservative, the Libertarian's worldview on foreign is dangerous and threatens national security. Because of our opposition to the drug war, Libertarians must be a bunch of doped up crackheads too high to have any common sense. Our arguments against the drug war (such as its a violation of personal rights, it costs too much, it causes more harm then good) are nothing more then the ramblings of people who want to smoke a joint without getting in trouble and should be marginalized and ignored. Our willingness to talk to our enemies and consider the motives of those who attack us makes us enemies to our national security. To the conservative, Libertarians are a useless fringe group which should be ignored under normal conditions, and trashed when it gains popularity.

To the liberals and the conservatives, the Libertarians 100% support for the constitution flies in the face of their personal interests and their own view of what American should be. The conservatives and liberals would rather ignore that this nation has a set of laws that they must obey and pretend they don't exist. This makes it easier for them to impose their worldviews on others who may or may not agree with them. Instead of obeying the constitution and seeking amendments, our sacred document is ignored and thrown to the back of a room where no one can see it. Libertarians desire to bring it back into the light, at the forefront of American politics, threatens the ideals of the liberal and conservative worldviews. This makes Libertarians a useless fringe group which should be ignored under normal conditions, and trashed when it gains popularity.

Don't believe the stereotypes conservatives and liberals believe about Libertarians. Educate yourself on our beliefs, on our platform.

www.lp.org. Join the revolution.

Constitution NOT a living, breathing document.

I’ve heard time and time again that this nations constitution, the rule book by which the government must abide, should not be interpreted as the writers intended, but that it is in fact a “living, breathing document” that changes meaning as time goes by in accordance with the needs of the nation.


As reasonable as this may sound at first, this notion is really one of the most absurd and frightening ideas being argued today. The basic argument goes that if we were to interpret the constitution strictly on how the writers indeed then the nation would not be able to keep up with the times.


But a living, breathing constitution is no constitution at all. If your going to change what it means to suet your own personal agenda at your own will then you’ve just destroyed the constitution altogether. Just as in Gorge Orwell’s “Animal Farm” simple rules such as “no animal shall kill another animal” and “no animal shall sleep in a bed” become “no animal shall kill another without reason” and “no animal shall sleep in a bed without sheets.” In the same way modern politicians, wishing to strengthen their own point of view, deliberately misinterpret the constitution. The right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed becomes the rights of the militia to bare arms shall not be infringed, and so on. With a living constitution this is the danger we set ourselves up for. Any rights, any limit put on government power, can simply be “interpreted” differently so that it is made to say something it clearly does not. Sure it may be clear the founders intended for the people to have the right to bare arms, but since the constitution is a “living” document in the minds of many that simple fact means nothing.


There is a perfectly good way for us to amend the constitution, and it isn’t by simply ignoring or interpreting it differently. If you don’t like what the constitution says then by all means try to change it and if the changes you purpose don’t pass then they must not be for the good of the country. Lets stop changing the constitution without amendment just so we can further our political goals. Stand behind it as the founders intended.

Government; bankrupting America one dollar at a time.

3.6 Trillion. Can you even wrap your head around such a number? Tape 3.6 trillion one dollar bills end to end and you could make a line to the sun and back almost three times. Yeah, that’s a lot of bills. Hell, one trillion dollar bills weigh more then an aircraft carrier, how much does THREE weigh?

Obama’s budget gives me chills. It doesn’t even include the recent stimulus bill that was passed through Congress, or a purposed trillion dollar spending bill that one can only assume based in past events will pass just like the Bush bailouts and the Obama stimulus. As the last months of Bush’s administration wound down Bush had to give America’s future generations one last kiss of death by signing a bill that gave almost a trillion dollars to failing banks with very little oversight. Much of that money simply disappeared, and we are no better off today then we were when the bailout was passed. Soon afterwards Bush also gave taxpayer money to failing auto companies, some of which are now asking for MORE money from the government.

And then Obama came to Washington, promising much needed change from the terrible policies of the Bush administration. Well we got it. A record budget deficit, even larger then Bush’s, and a gigantic “stimulus” spending bill that throws almost a trillion dollars by itself on the national debt that future Americans will have to pay. This coming from the man who wants to cut the deficit in half, this from the man who promised change, this from the man who stood up to the nation and said he would not continue the failed policies of the Bush administration. Instead of fiscal responsibility, the kind the GOP has long ago abandoned in favor of partisan ideology, Obama is instead giving us more of the poison the GOP fed us for the last 8 years. Record deficits, huge spending bills, increases in spending, with no real plan to cut the deficit or pay off our debts.

This is nothing more then legal plunder of the American people. The government does not produce anything; any money they spend has to come from a few sources. They either take it from the taxpayers, they print the money out of thin air, or the barrow it from other nations, all of which over time will have disastrous consequences on the country. In a time of economic troubles, raising taxes seems to me the last thing that would stimulate us. It is the private sector that brings wealth to the country, it is the private sector that creates wealth and capitol, and yet the government sees the need to tax the private sector in order to promote its own interests. Barrowing from other countries and inflation would also likewise continue us down the road of dependence on foreign dollars. Forget our dependence on foreign oil, those problem pail in light of our dependence on China to buy out debt so we can spend money “greening” out country. People complain about “giving money to countries that don’t like us” and yet we borrow money from China without even thinking of the long term consequences. These debts need to be paid, and by continuing down the road of fiscal liberalism promoted by both parties then future generations will have a terrible price to pay for OUR irresponsibility. All the improvements that the government is trying to put into place will fall apart because of the debt they weren’t willing to face. Likewise inflating our money supply to pay for these programs will devalue our money to the point that it will no longer be the valuable currency it is today.

Obama talks about taking a scalpel to our federal budget to weed out programs that don’t work and eliminate them. No, with our bloated government a scalpel is not what we need. What we need is for our leaders to take a chainsaw to the federal budget and cut it in half. Close military basis over seas, end the drug war, eliminate social programs, end any funding to states that doesn’t benefit multiple states (if a program only benefits one state that state should foot the bill), no more bailouts, no more stimulus bills where the money won’t be spent for two years, no more pork bills for peanut festivals in Georgia. And for real stimulus eliminate the income tax for EVERYONE! Allow an opt out option for Social Security for people who will probably not benefit from it and allow those people to keep what money they’d normally spend in Social Security taxes.

This nation is hurdling towards socialism; any objective observer can clearly see that. When socialized medicine is closer then ever and the US government owns 36% of a bank, then there really isn’t a question regardless of if you see that as a good thing or not. But one thing is becoming increasingly clear; we cannot afford it. We talk about these huge social programs as if they didn’t cost anything, and we ignore the steadily increasing debt we are handing down to future generations. No terrorist with WMD’s can do the damage to this country our own government has done. Osama will never destroy this country, what will however is our enormous debt. With neither the GOP nor the Democrats willing to confront this issue, I am simply asking for the people on this country to seek REAL change, to see someone who WILL promote fiscal responsibility, and has a record to prove it.

When we spend beyond our means and act fiscally irresponsibly we go into bankruptcy, we lose our homes, our cars, our possessions. When the government does it simply takes and spends more. Some example.

Democrats VS Republicans on foreign policy.

A lot of hype has been made in the recent Presidential election about the apparent stark differences between the foreign policies of the two major parties, and with President Obama taking office recently people around the nation have taken hope that maybe the disastrous foreign policy of the Bush years might be reversed now that the Democrats have control of both the House and the White House. I do not share such enthusiasm. Although Obama is 100% correct in his desire to end the Iraq war, and I do believe he intends on brining this idiotic conflict to an end, the idea that the Democratic Party as a whole is an anti war party, steadfastly opposed to unnecessary wars, is a myth.


The Democrats, much like the Republicans who’ve been recently kicked out of office, are not an anti war party, and historically never have been. The illusion that the Democrats are anti war is forged mainly in their recent opposition to the Iraq war, and yet people seem to forget that when Bush first suggested going to war in Iraq he was enthusiastically supported by not only members of his own party, but by many prominent Democrats as well, Hillary Clinton (present Secretary of State) included. Obama has great respect from me for standing against the Iraq war, but unfortunately his position was not the position strongly supported by his fellow elected Democrats. Lulled by promises that the war would be quick, easy, bloodless, and would pay for itself, the Democrats followed the Republican lead and plunged the nation into not only an unnecessary war, but an unconstitutional one as well. No formal declaration of war was ever declared by Congress, and the constitution is very clear that only Congress, not the President, may declare war. If we are willing to accept the fact that the Iraq war is in fact a war, we must also realize that, by America’s laws, it is an illegal war as well.


Historically the Democrats have been the pro war party for years, getting the US unnecessarily involved in WWI under President Wilson, Korea under Truman, escalated the Vietnam War, and have used US troops in many peacekeeping operations around the world. During WWI Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, despite running on an anti war platform and promising the American people to keep us out of Europe’s bickering, unnecessarily pulled the US into war in Europe that we had no business being a part of. Thousands of US troops died in a war that did nothing to make American safer.


The current policy of fighting unconstitutional undeclared wars began during the Truman administration when Democratic President Harry Truman used a UN resolution to bypass American laws and send US troops to Korea without a declaration of war. Although this was a gross violation of the US constitution the growing power of the executive branch was left unchecked, and such violations were allowed to repeat themselves in Vietnam, Somalia, Dessert Storm, and today with our war in Iraq. All these wars have one thing in common, none were declared by Congress.


The Democratic Party, just like the Republican Party, is a party of opportunism. They are opportunists who will not hesitate to fight a war if they believe it is politically in their own self interest, never mind the interest of the country and the never mind the constitution. They supported the Republicans idiotic war because not supporting it would make them look weak, cowardly, un American, etc. They supported it when the war was popular, but when it turned south they claimed to be the anti war part; and although some of them, such as Obama were genuinely against the Iraq war, the party as a whole plunged into this war alongside Bush. They did not offer any resistance to it, nor did fulfill Congresses role by officially declaring war on Iraq. The Republicans were stuck with the war because it was their President who started it, although I have a sneaky suspicion that if a Democratic President had started the war places would be reversed, with the Republicans calling for the war to end and the Democrats saying “stay the course.” I guess we’ll never know.


The point is not to take the blame off the Bush administration or his cronies in the Congress, that is not my intention. The Republican Party has proven itself a failure and deserved the defeats it has endured. However, it is not wise to give the Democrats a free pass either in this foreign policy fiasco. The Democrats have a history of fighting unnecessary and undeclared wars, and they have not left that history behind them just because one of their own has been elected President. The Democrats, for all their talk and rhetoric, are no anti war party. They will fight unnecessary wars just as willingly as the Republicans if they believe they can win them and gain politically. Peacekeeping operations justified with UN resolutions and not American law have been fought before by the Democratic Party. In the Vice Presidential debates Vice President Joe Bidden stated that he would be in favor of US peacekeeping operations in Sudan and other troubled regions using American troops to enforce the peace. Although such operations are honorable in their intentions, one need only to look at US intervention in Somalia to see where such action can go horribly wrong. Such intervention would in no way make American safer, and would only serve to put American troops in harms way serving nations and people other then our own. Such action would be a betrayal to our troops who have pledged to serve this country, not another.


I do not trust the Democratic Congress in Washington any more then I trusted the Republican Congress (and I trusted them not at all). Change is coming to Washington, whether for good or ill I know not, but that change will not be in our foreign policy. Wars will continue to be undeclared, troops will still die unnecessarily in battles that even if won will not make America any safer, and generations from now our children will look back with equal disdain for both major political parties and their leaders.


Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. In the end, it is not principle which guides them, but a pursuit for power. Never forget that.